There is no middle ground...

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The concept of a middle ground between Good and Evil is, in my opinion, screwy. There is no middle ground for human beings or spirits. There is Good, and Evil, Light, and Darkness. Jesus himself said he did not come to bring Peace, but a sword. As long as there are those who need to be liberated, there will be no Neutrality in the War between Good and Evil. In this plane of existence, we have our perceptions distorted by the Enemy, Satan. In the spiritual world we will be more aware of what is going on and Good and Evil than we are when we are now alive.

This is my philosophical belief regarding Good and Evil. Please discuss.

2

Satan is not an actual entity . This contradicts sumerian, egyptian, jewish scriptures.

Which is where your bible came from.

Christ was a Jew , schooled from youth as a Jew , it was his wish to reform Judaism . Same as Buddha tried to reform hinduism .

Christianity is essentially Judaism as Buddhism is Hinduism . There is no radical break from teachings as such. This is why kung fu at the shaolin temple is practised using techniques given by a hindu monk .

Chinese buddhists , thousands of years later , only slightly diversing form the hindu teachings they recieved on breath control, sacred geometry and use of energy .

You must understand christianity in this way .

3

I love how you just said I MUST understand scripture in that way. No, I mustn’t.

4

Of course you dont have to , but because I care about your psychological welfare I advise that you must , otherwise your beliefs will end by leading you astray , and then where will you be many years from now as a christian , as a believer ?

Your choice .

I,ve noticed your not bothering to answer my questions in the other thread either?

5

Pretend you’re looking at an old tall clock with a pendulum in the middle keeping time. The pendulum swings back and forth. Imagine the far left side of the swing as evil and the far right as good. What would you call the top of the pendulum where the arm begins? In the center or “middle” it is neither good nor evil but its effects produce good and evil or these opposites however you are defining them. Therefore good and evil exist within this middle as potential which is actualized in the swing of the pendulum.

6

Nick_A, it seems to me that you are equating Good and Evil with natural process, the change that happens in nature. That is to say, physically, I will do good things, evil things, and things which may be a little of both. I move from one to another, and in that sense, your comparison works.
But I don’t think Good and Evil are really about natural processes. It seems to me that good and evil are more about propositions- they are a sort of logic. That is, something is good or evil if it meets certain conditions, (dis)obeys certain rules. Rules, propositions, logic…these things are all very much static. They have particular, eternal relations to each other that never change, they just may or may not be actualized at one point or another.
So, I think lives, history, events…all of those may relate to good and evil like a pendulum, but good and evil in and of themselves are more like the frame in which the pendulum swings, if that makes sense.

7

Hi. I’m not a big fan of narrowly-spun ideology and that includes the vast
majority of religions. I think stating that there is no middle-ground between good and evil is dangerous thinking and history shows that in the end when two ideologies disagree on a political level, too often the result itself leads to evils done in the name of those ideologies.
And to claim that one’s foundation for these claims is a religious system for which there is virtually no evidence, is simply irrational. Because in end, if someone disagrees with your definition of good and evil, either one must try to convince the person peacefully, walk away or come to blows.
In my opinion, ideology is a poor substitute for genuine rational, empirical assessment and makes a mockery of genuine thought. By ideology, I mean a system of thought which has ceased to attempt to justify it s claims and merely accepts its premises or corollaries on faith.
Where justification ends, so does morality and so does freedom.
Free the mind first.
Cheers, MRJ

8

This is one of those questions that can be answered in so many different ways.

Absurdist/Existential would say that good and evil are mearly social constructions, and in that way… their existence does really exist in any sort of moral regard, there is no middle… because the spectrum has been shattered.

Now, that is a copout so I’ll give you another answer. Think of ‘the middle’ as our potential, much as Nick and Uccisore sort of got at. Now, Nietsche was right, there really are no good or evil things, but the concept it still a useful fiction. Just think about our daily life, to go through it, your brain catelogues alot of information, in fact you only take in about 1% of what’s really going on in the world, if you are say, walking down a busy street or something. You see a window as a window, not a grid of iron, filled in with glass. You see the lines on the road as equal yellow things, instead of a perceived spectrum of lengths varying on the speed you’re going. You see your favorite team, up against the team you hate. The latter being an example as a sort of good and evil.

It’s useful like I said, and the reason why is because we’ve grown up with it, up until Neitszche pointed it out, we were still using it like we are now… it’s one of the tools we’ve emerged with from history, it is inexorably linked with the ying/yang dualistic nature of our mind.

9

during the holocaust, there are people who lied in order to save some people from dying. Lying is wrong.

When there’s light, there cannot be darkness. But do you think it’s not possible for you to do things that are both wrong and right?

10

Sure, but I think the ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ are determined with two different trains of thought.

so like:

  1. Saving people from dying = good (cause dying is bad)

  2. Lying = bad (cause not lying is good)

Lying is sort of a weak example to use though… But they still both maintain that dualistic trend.

11

I don’t believe there is true good or true evil on our plane of existance, if those extreme concepts exist at all.

Life is not a pendulum, life is an eternal circle and as we dance we play all the parts. One cannot fight evil with the sword without becoming evil. So in wishing good you do an evil thing and one cannot exists without the other and at the same time both do not exist at all.

12

Well here. I’m just going to go on the record and say that Good and Evil aren’t a true dualism in the first place. They aren’t opposites, they aren’t extremes, just like an island isn’t the opposite of the ocean. The fundamental mistake we make is to see evil as something. That is, we want to say that evil is palpable like good is, and it’s not. Evil is the absences, violation, or lacking of the Good. But Good is not defined in terms of absence of Evil. That’s right. Good exists on it’s own, and evil exists in terms of Good. If you think this is impossible, let me illustrate.
Consider light and darkness. In a true dualism, we could say that darkness is the absence of light. We could ALSO say that light is the absence of darkness (forget the notion of degree for now). As I write this, the only light in this room comes from the glow of my monitor, which casts long shadows all about. If Light and Dark were a dualism, I could say that a shadow is a beam of darkness cast in a particular direction by a shoe on my floor. With me so far? Good.
Now, as I look at all the beams of darkness cast about on my floor, I may decide to examine them. Why do the objects in my room cast their beams of darkness in the particular directions that they do? I submit that there is no possible explanation for this that does not involve my computer monitor. In other words, the light is defining the darkness. Now, take the opposite. There is no light at all outside my bedroom door. It is pitch black out there. Bare with me, while I open the door.

What I notice is this. Even though the darkness outside was very great, and the light inside was very dim, the darkness did not come spilling into my room any blot out the light. To the contrary, the very dim light I had was enough to make the darkness outside my room retreat some. If there was a duality, then it would be like two different colors water seperated by a partition- the hall gets a little brighter, my room gets a little darker. This did not happen. So then, they are not two sides of a coin. darkness follows completely different rules than light does (don’t think about that for very long, it’s really mind boggling to me). If you do think about it long enough, you’ll come to this: There is no such thing as darkness. There is such a thing as light. NO duality here.

I submit that Good and Evil are just like this. Because there are 2 ways of decribing the morality of an act, we want to put those two ways up as opposites, as a duality, and define them in terms of each other. But that’s just an instinct, there’s no reality in it. Don’t look for a further analogy between LIght & Dark, Good & Evil, because I’m not sure it’s there. All I want to say is, there’s no reason that they have to operate the same way, or that they even both have to exist at all. One may be completely defined as a lacking of the other, with no substance or reality of it’s own. This goes back to my idea that good and evil should be viewed as static. Under this model, Good is a country, and “evil” is simply a word for whatever wasteland is outside it’s borders. There is no alternate country of Evil with borders of it’s own.

13

Hi Uccisore,

This reminds me of C.S.Lewis. Having said that, I think that evil has generally been a result of the use of power by an egomaniac who has a disregard for the lives of others or a vengeful hate of a few. If we don’t assume immediately that these people were “possessed”, it would seem to me that their socialisation failed at some crucial point. That means that evil is like a storm that rises against what is generally thought of as good and wholesome. I agree, there is no duality here, since evil seems to be an exception to the rule, but I ask myself whether or not, like in so many other cases, we have ourselves to blame.

I think that just as we can be utilitarian for the manifestations of good, we are also utilitarian for the manifestations of evil. Therefore, we are the pendulum, having the potential and the duality within us, not circumstances or the world. I think that good behaviour has to be cultivated one generation to the next, just as the deterioration picks up momentum from one generation to the next. In one way, the phrase “there is no middle ground” could be said to declaring that no-one is not part of the collective – and that we all, whether we want to or not, influence the collective.

I appreciate your illustration of light and darkness.

My example only differs inasmuch as good, to me, is a cultivated effort, and evil is when that effort is undermined. Good is when things are running positively for all, bad is when things stop running and start turning negative for all. This is also not duality, but explainable by showing that without bad experiences, I do not appreciate the good ones and have no appreciation of what others may be going through.

Shalom

14

It’s hard to look at this without getting all fuzzy, but it seems to me that the natural world presents no concept of good nor evil, that only humans can bring either good or evil to the fore. In our awareness, the moment we see good, we have created its’ opposite. By naming good, we have also named not-good. The naming may be a convention, but a necessary one if we are to make sense of our awareness. It becomes a construct that allows us to ‘sort’ our experience. As with all our naming, there are consequences that follow. For me, there is benevolent and malovent seeing and acting. It is not a given that my awareness will always allow me to ‘see’ with clarity the completeness of benevolence or malovence within any particular experience. Our words and concepts are only narrow incomplete symbols of reality, and much of the consequences of our actions (or inactions) are outside the tunnel vision of our symbols.

Finally, it comes down to our intent - regardless the final ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of the consequences…

My, that was as clear as mud… :unamused:

JT

15

Hi JT,

Yes, I think it isn’t to be avoided. We always discriminate one by praising the other. We have discussed this before, but I think that good and evil are perceptions of sentiment. Like you say, we sort things that way. Scripture latches on to this language of course, speaking in terms that we can identify with. We need to understand that it is very much a language problem.

Very much indeed! This is something that the “Literalists” need to understand, and accept the limitations of language – especially if it has been translated over and over again. If you allow the old languages to speak, there are a large number of archetypal experiences described in a figurative language that we can all understand, if we would read it intuitively.

I love to quote this one:
Footnote to All Prayers

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskilfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolators, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.

Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

C.S. Lewis

Exactly, we are bound to fail if it is perfection that we seek, but if we fail whilst trying to do some good, “it is the thought that counts”, as long as we notice when we fail.

Shalom

16

Doesn’t surprise me, I’ve been reading a lot of him lately. I don’t know if I agree with you about evil…seems to me that most of it goes unnoticed, the cracks and corners of society- people with no power at all. Surely the ‘great’ evils, the ones that will never be forgotten, are usually the way you describe. But I wonder how much of the evil in the world situations like that truly are.

 Yeah, I wonder about which is the rule and which is the exception. On the one hand, Good seems to be the result of striving a lot of the time, whereas Evil will happen on it's own if we get lazy or innattentive. On the other hand, it seems like if God is the way the Universe began, Good should be the rule, and Evil an occaisional failing.

You seem to echo that here, that Good needs to be cultivated, and that evil will basically take place on it's own otherwise. As far as humans having potential for both, yeah I would say that must be true.

So again, we have the idea that Good must be worked for, and that evil ‘just happens’, or at the very least, happens easier. Does this say anything about the natural world? One could conclude from all this that the Nature is an evil thing by default, and that humans forge the good out of it. .

17

Hi Uccisore,

I find it difficult to call all forms of immorality “evil” because they are inconsistent with rectitude. In my mind, evil brings up a connotation to a special quality of malevolence. A number of people have done me wrong or even caused me harm, but I wouldn’t call them evil.

This is the way I see the world. Millions of people are just trying to survive and better their squalid conditions the best they can. They want to raise the children they have and have some feeling that their efforts are worth the energy, and that things are getting better. Along the way there are possibilities and chances – some of which these people have oversight, but many which they cannot oversee. Things go wrong, and sometimes there are people to blame. Often circumstances have dictated that were not optional.

I don’t know if it is evil that takes place if good is not cultivated – it can become that way perhaps, but the first reaction is chaos, turmoil, unrest, unruliness. It is a state of confusion that may be exploited by someone – which would then be “evil”.

I know that we don’t agree about this, but I believe that the creation myths actually serve to explain the beginning of civilisation, explaining why Mankind is cultivated and the animal world is not. The world had been formless and empty until life came about, and Mankind has a special role to play. He is on the planet to cultivate it and prevent it falling back into disarray. This means that, although the natural state of nature is to fall back into a chaotic, disorganised state, Mankind has the ability to bring forth the best that nature can offer.

You might say that the idea of putting human beings onto a planet that is in the state of “entropy” is evil, but not the planet or “nature” itself, since nature is following physical laws, and cannot be intentionally malevolent. We have a challenge and it seems that it can go both ways. But again, perhaps the ancients envisioned this challenge as being repeatable (since Genesis says that the earth “became” formless and empty) – that does pose a few questions, doesn’t it?

Shalom

18

“Play chess on tuesdays” is this a good or evil ought?

19

Well, if that is your belief then, I would say you have to be evil. Because anyone who isn’t living exactly like Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, etc. etc. is pretty much going to fall into that camp. Because the only definition of good, in your case, can be living to benefit other people. So, for example, if you own a computer, that is money you could have given to the poor. If you eat more than you need to survive, you are evil.

So if there is no middle ground, you are pure evil. Sorry to break it to you.

Personally, I do think there is a middle ground, thankfully. I think most people are somewhere in the middle between good and evil. Very few are pure one or the other.

20

Human justice is based on human need/national need.
Religious justice is based on a written code.
Are you willing to die for a belief or written law?
If so then this law is a murderer.

Spiritual evil gets more complex.
Back in my dark days id simply said:
“All religion is demonism.”

Then there is the argument:
“Religion killed God!”
^
This is the statement to insight argument.
I can only guess that over 90% of all human word about God is untrue.
His “representatives” are rather blasphemious around the world once put togeather.
Higher life forms made of somthing other then matter is not exactly impossable,
but proofless claims will always be proofless claims.

In theory, every religion, because of the fact that it has become a religion,
has human leaders in it, and the evils of higharchy exert influance into the teaching.
Weather God or some posative spirit enlightened/posessed an individual for a time
is not enough to render the religion “good” or “bad”. Curruption and aulterations
sertainly effect the “teaching” with time.

Therefor, the only way that we can refine these proofless claims is by
directly comparing them with known facts about human needs.
If God is a genious and a man is an ideot compared to him,
then whilest attempting to proove God wrong he will only proove him right
by doing the oposite of right and then suffering. A modest, balanced,
practical and objective application of the bible may render it not a religion
at all, but is that realy such a bad thing?
Id prefer if “God” and “religion” were mentaly keeped seporate when viewed.

Id prefer/recomend an agnostic focus on practical things,
and direct prayer to the creator.
Avoid both religion and magic/goths/spiritism things.

Dan, the cautiously optamistic christian… :confused:

(Read’s Bob’s posts more, edit:)
Hey, heres one:
“Good” and “evil” are a poor substitute for thought.

Things have exceptions, we all have weaknesses…
We just try to do what we can on this earth it our short time,
and the last thing we need is to be judged.
What we realy need is someone to guide us and love us and help us, as we also love guide and try to help ourselves.