Evil, the absence of good?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

explain further

22

One can play with dialectics forever and as long as seen as black and white, the game never ends. Black and white do exist as the extreme ends of a continuum that is predominantly grey. One strives for more good than evil (normally), but neither can be vanquished. Good and evil, pain and pleasure, all the other opposites, depend on each other for their very existence. How would one know heaven without hell? Most of us enjoy the pleasure of ice cream, but how much ice cream before we experience the pain of too much? Absence doesn’t mean non-existence, it simply isn’t present in a particular specific experience. Go ahead. Eat that gallon of ice cream… :wink:

23

Great. So neither exist if they’re absent all the time. What is there than? Can we just can it moderate behavior?

24

They exist in proportion to one another, and work on a contextual and circumstantial level.

Indifference has little to do with “love” and “hate”, but more of their motives – hope and fear.

25

It’s a pattern when you see emotion as the answer. Good or bad isn’t an answer but when together it’s personality you fall back on. The emotion will have outcomes that seem different to others but if you name them, evil and good, that’s when you try to grasp the concept of metaphysics and how they’re applied. It one is said to be better than the other or if one said one is the absence of another it’s only opinion speaking on part of the person saying so. No person can specifically draw conclusion to why it’s seen as such ethical when each human is given emotional intelligence.

26

Say a man kills a Muslim in NY, at ground zero of WTC, on September 11th. Do you think everyone would see that act in the same way – as definitively “good” or “bad”?

Some would perceive it one way, others differently. That’s the way of people. Observation tells me that much.

As for logic, just consider that everything “good” or “evil” must have been posited as such, at some point, for some reason. They work as antithesis, so doing one must spark a conceptualization of it’s opposite. For instance, murder sparks consideration of things like manslaughter and killing in self defense – that touches on “evil”, “indifferent”, and “good”. For every real “good” there is a risk involved, apprehension to that risk can be called “evil” in many cases. Consideration, or action, in one direction implies consideration or action in the other.

For instance - If you haven’t murdered a man, chances are you’ve pondered it. If you have murdered a man, there are likely several you wished to have murdered that you didn’t.

Ideas like ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ coalesce in moral value. This is not a new idea by any means.

27

Not true since there’s NO GOOD! If there’s no good then there is no evil! If you think thee is GOOD (IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE), give us some example!

28

Ok, how’s this–

Say you have all of your moral values lumped into a whole. Some you consider “good”, some you consider “evil”. Within that whole is a dichotomy, but both sides represent the same thing. They exist in proportion to one another based on how you perceive some moral dilemma. We inherently make distinctions so one can be perceived as greater than the other in some situations, but the terms are descriptors - “good” and “evil” are what you make of them. Therefore, the more good you perceive, the less evil; and vice-versa. However, I would contend that there exist no absolutes, so there is no universal “balance” being maintained here. My point is that people can essentially ascribe “good” or “evil” value to anything - but one cannot be ascribed without consideration of the other.

You cannot say something is “good” without considering how “bad/evil” it may be. By doing so, you are considering them in proportion. You final conclusion, as well, will be proportional.

If you’re still having trouble understanding, give me an example of a moral dilemma and I’ll see if I can break it down for you.

29

evil is because of god

both war amoung each other and we Humans are caught in the middle

30

What about the consequences of choice? If God’s way is not chosen, is that evil? If we are neutral and choose nothing, are we ignoring God’s way and still being evil?

31

both god and evil are irrelevent , should be

what is troubling is that Humanty is held in the grasp of both

32

hardly irrelevant. doing good pushes us forward, doing bad backwards.

kill the planet, not much future for the humanity, is there?

33

Actually I agree with both of you. Ithink North is speaking metaphysics and you are talking about the material world

34

Good would be defined as anybody explaining the definition as what ever they thought was the definition.
Clockwise, evil can be interpreted by a situation or something someone has an opinion on.
It can be sought as good or evil (situation) and than it would be only known to that person, if not than by another as opinionated by. If you see that war is good in a sense than it’s evil in someones head somewhere else and so forth. If you say cursing is bad than you see there’s worse things than cursing and so forth. There’s a different light in each head per say. Naming something can be different than taking action and played out eternally different for a person.

35

It’s natural to see both in our everyday life. It seems to stand out in various situation we see, hear, or feel. It’s natural for one to die… Is it good or evil? Neither and so it continues to be progressive with our own understanding of what the definition it. It can be looked at as neutral in some case if someone backs up both sides. “Can’t we all get along” NO! We can ALL not get along and so we live amongst each other forever and ever amen.

36

How about evil is the presence of great pain? It is a positive thing. However, please don’t reiffy it or the good so as not to make them indeppendent of their acctons that make either.This notion of lack is just an ignoratio elenchi- irrelevant and- mere word play! But then that is the nature of theology. Theologians make their living with their it must b’se and it may be’s of mere guessswork without any facts. Prof. Irwn Corey makes more sense! ](*,)

37

Well that is what I’m getting at, in a way–

However, you are correct, I’ve been using “proportional” incorrectly almost this entire time…

Awesome.

Not sure what word I’m looking for, but I mean to say that the two are dependent upon one another to form a whole – some moral evaluation.