does good and evil exist?

[ali smack]

is there such a thing as good and evil?

does good and evil exist?

if they don't exist then how come some people contradict themselves by saying someone is good or evil? if they don't believe in good and evil.

if good and evil don't exist, does that mean that if someone kills someone, there not really doing anything wrong?

how does science explain good and evil

[+and-then]

is there such a thing as good and evil?

does good and evil exist?

if they don't exist then how come some people contradict themselves by saying someone is good or evil? if they don't believe in good and evil.

if good and evil don't exist, does that mean that if someone kills someone, there not really doing anything wrong?

how does science explain good and evil

Mother Teresa lived and did works in her life, so did Hitler. Yes, I believe that good and evil exist, unless one seeks for a definition so tortured as to make an answer impossible. Most people would want to be associated with one who would help and not harm them.

[Frank Merton]

What Hitler did he thought was the right thing to do for the long-term good of humanity. This is the nature of delusion. Now, can we say that the deluded are evil?

[Frank Merton]

how does science explain good and evil

It doesn't. This is quite out of its purview.

[Hasina]

No. They're made up concepts to make us feel better about our actions.

[Frank Merton]

For us to say that good and evil exist as real things it requires a standard by means of which things can be measured. I know of two proposed standards -- the proposed perfection of God and the proposed essence of merit and its loss known as karma.

Other than these, it would seem that good and evil are just judgment words we attach to things that have meaning only in human context.

[wolfknight]

Good and Evil. Right and Wrong are the same

[Frank Merton]

Good and Evil. Right and Wrong are the same

How about droit and gauche?

[redhen]

how does science explain good and evil

This is probably posted in the wrong place, it should go in the philosophy forum.

Science explains morality as a natural extension of the ethical behaviour we see in other species, especially other apes besides us.

You can read quite a bit for free in this google book preview on Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved

In more general terms, the field of evolutionary psychologyhas much to say about reciprocity and deceit. The field of Sociology addresses how we interact as groups, and clinical psychology deals with "fixing" those who act outside the bounds of society.

Our justice system revolves around the concepts of fairness and wrongdoing. Law is based on philosophy, which is also a science. Science has a lot to say about ethics and morality.

[Hasina]

Good and Evil, to me, are just the faceless secular God and Satan to place blame off of ourselves and onto something else. Why did that guy shoot up a school? Why, he was evil. Why did this guy donate his paycheck to orphan? Why, because he was good.

It's like the Voltaire song 'God Thinks':

'I hate people who blame the Devil for their own shortcomings and

I hate people who thank God when things go right'

It's the same with good and evil, there are reasons for why we do things, because these actions are 'good' or 'evil' is not one of them, though we can lie to ourselves and say they are reasons for actions, much like the Crusades in the name of God. God didn't do it, you did. Good or evil, you still killed someone. Self-protection or cold blood, someone's dead and you did it. Those are the facts, Jack, good and evil just muddy the waters.

[redhen]

OK, it's been while since I posted this video, I see it's time once again. It's a lecture by the psychology professor and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson on the Nature of Evil.

http://ww3.tvo.org/v...jordan-peterson

[J. K.]

Good and evil obviously exist as concepts, else we would be unable to discuss them.

Acts performed by humans may be labelled as good and evil, so good and evil acts exist.

[Beckys_Mom]

Man is living proof of good and evil

I think Pringles are evil, once you eat one, it makes you eat more and more.. EVIL PRINGLES

[Frank Merton]

There are several of these judgment spectrums besides good and evil.

There is beautiful and ugly.

There is harmonious and disharmonious.

There is wise and foolish.

There is valuable and worthless.

There is important and trivial.

and, most important but perhaps not fitting in with the others, there is true and false.

[Hasina]

There are several of these judgment spectrums besides good and evil.

There is beautiful and ugly.

There is harmonious and disharmonious.

There is wise and foolish.

There is valuable and worthless.

There is important and trivial.

and, most important but perhaps not fitting in with the others, there is true and false.

Each one of those (other then true and false) are based around opinion, which can never be proven to be true or false. What is beautiful to some is ugly to others. What is good to some is evil to others. This is why they 'don't exist' because they only exist in our minds.

[green_dude777]

This question definitely deserves to be in the philosophy forum, but I'll answer in my opinion, which is a resounding 'no'.

Good and Evil are descriptors from one point of view on one's actions. Whereas most would say Hitler was evil, some would not. Some would say the Pope is good, I personally would not. Cannibalism is still practiced in some parts of the world, to the western world, some would describe that as evil, some would be neutral, others would see it as good or possibly just a consequence of their conditions.

Let's use something more agreed upon... Is killing someone good or evil. The thinkers (which I hope is most) would ask the context of the kill, they are thinking intent is what matters. I would agree with them that intent is what matters, but it doesn't decide 'good' and 'evil'. Let's say I shoot a man who has a gun to a 5 year old's head, and the guy dies. I think most would say that is 'good'. Let's say that instead of the guy dieing when I shoot him, he's left incapacitated and the child is now safe... but I walk up and double tap the guy in the head. Is that 'good' or 'evil'? Some would say, "well, he was incapacitated, he didn't need to die, so that was 'evil'." Others would say, "you rid society of a dirtbag, that was 'good'."

Personally, I agree with the assessment that intent matters, but it's more of a 'selfish or selfless' thing.

Is someone doing a deed for themselves, or for others. I tend to think that the selfless are the 'good', and the selfish are the 'evil'. On top of that, things aren't so 'black and white'. Sometimes, selfless people make selfish acts, and vice versa. I just strive to stay on the selfless side of the meter.

[redhen]

Whenever someone makes a normative (value) claim, it has to pass three tests.

1) Role exchange: exchange places with someone who you wish to apply the claim/prescription.

i.e. murder and cannibalism are fine, everything's relative, man. How would you like it if someone murdered and ate you?

i.e. pedophilia is ethically ok, everything's relative, man. How would you like it if someone raped your infant?

2) New Cases Test: take the value premise (rule, principle) and apply it across cases to test it's strength.

every new case where the principle doesn't hold up, weakens the principle.

3) Consistency and Universality: inconsistent principles are unacceptable.

i.e. you should make promises with the intent of breaking them.

[markprice]

Good and Evil. Right and Wrong are the same

It's supposed to be Divine and Evil or Good and Bad. That's because people think of evil as worse than bad but not divinity as better than good. Completely different realms are introduced when talking about divinity and evil than when talking about good and bad. So to be all inclusive, and pretty much miss the point, people talk about good and evil when they are probably just meaning right and wrong.

Edited February 6, 2013 by markprice