It pains me to no small extent that I can’t figure out the answer to this question. When someone asks “What does a person do to be considered terribly EVIL?” I can answer pretty quickly. “That’s easy…You just kill people in gruesome ways, and then do horrible things to their remains.” But then when asked “What does a person do to be considered wonderfully GOOD?” I am more strained to answer. The first thing that comes to mind is charity work but still the answer does not seem as definitive as my answer for EVIL. My answer seems foggy. Exactly what to do seems illusive. This bothers me. What does this say about me? Why is it so much easier to conjure up ideas to do HARM than to conjure up ideas to do HEAL.

What is the opposite of a serial killer?

Someone does something that makes people shake their heads in despair and say “There is terrible evil in this world.”

So what do you do to make people shake their heads in wonder and say “There is wonderful good in this world?”

Someone stalks the night looking for a victim…How does someone stalk the day looking for ____________(I can’t even think on an antonym for victim)?

Someone sits in their house maliciously plotting to do unspeakable things…Who sits in their house plotting to do wonderful things? What are those things and how does someone go about doing them? We all know what makes a TERRIBLE person. But what makes a WONDERFUL person?

Perhaps there is no such thing as altruism. All good. Maybe, it can be observed, people do all good things from a selfish motivation first. After all, it feels good to give. And that feeling, seeking it out, reveling in it, feeling it at all, is truly in every sense of the word, a selfish motivation. So maybe the "killer opposite" is also selfish. Because, for some, they feel that same emotional satisfaction or even compulsion to commit the acts of good or evil, because of the rush they receive from it. And that to can be said to be purely selfish.


I think all life is selfish. And while some may say that's wicked or wrong, I obviously would disagree. Our life is self serving, our goals are set and pursued through the vehicle of self motivation, which is a particulate of everything relative to self-satisfaction, personal gain, self- aggrandizement. Even our most evil aspects of personality, are self realized. One has to bring themselves , abridging all implied senses of social mores, to commit what some call "Evil". Which in itself is subjective. So what if it's not really a matter of killer opposites. But rather mass and particulate, self is the sum total of it's parts, that serves our ego to make us feel good, as the true feral aspect of ourselves, knows itself to be!?

Does someone that kills someone feel remorse for extinguishing a lifetime? Or is their remorse self-consciousness for getting caught?! Like that child that fears discipline, after playing in the mud all day felt soooo good and so worth mommies stern look, at the end of the night?! If morality was invested at all in the choice to take that life, would it not have come into play first and the life spared?! And how is it immoral to murder, but not to kill? How is a serial killer the embodiment of evil and a soldier with the bronze star, purple heart and medal of valor, a hero? Context! On the pretext there are rules to being human. But human is by definition a sense of self. So, aren't we born selfish, if we strive to survive ourselves at all. As predators or prey, as activists or apathetics!? What if it's not a matter of killer opposites, that make this community so diverse in personality, but rather a irrational whole!?

Interesting, Goddess. So we are selfish whether we do amazing evil or amazing good. I can see that. I will not deny that it feels great to help someone.

But that just elevates the question. Why do amazing good? Why do amazing evil? What determines which you will do?

simple answer iams, is your own history.

conditioning. what which provided "positive" responses is reinforced....

good and evil are just arbitrary labels based on perspective.... good and evil have no play in the human behaviour. these concepts only play in justication, attribution, and judgement.

Perhaps your predicament is reality. Perhaps the reason you cannot easily answer is that that's the truth of it, and there is nothing people can do to make others say "there is wonderful good in this world". Perhaps, despite religious teachings and philosophical ideas, we humans are not good at heart, maybe our core "evil", or maybe even not that! Maybe it's simple instinct, despite our superiority complex and illusions of grandeur at having basically conquered the planet through technology/divine will/achieving the pinnacle of evolution!

Of course this is all hypothetical...

But what if...?

As a Christian I believe the biblical interpretation of good as doing the will of God. The biblical evil is, of course the opposite, not doing the will of God.
However I believe the secular terms of good and evil are subjective. Although we can all agree that Hitler carried out evil acts, he saw them as good and as requirments for his plans.
We all draw the line of what we think is evil, the boundary we would never pass, that is why it is easy to think what the 'ultimate evil' is. However we don't draw a line at the good end of the scale, so find it hard to think of a situation we could describe as the 'ultimate good' since in theory we would do all things that are good. To difine the 'ultimate good' I think you have to include your reasons for doing it.
I think Mother Teresa got it right:

Whatever good act you do, from helping an old lady cross the road through to rescuing someone from a burning house, when you do it for no other reason than love, thats the 'ultimate good'.

After reading the posts, it seems that only Micklemas tried to actually answer the question. The question was not “does good and evil exist” or whether good is at its base selfish (as if that disqualifies it from being good), but the question was, “What is the opposite of a serial killer?” or “What does one do that will make most people stop and say ‘Wow...there is wonderful good in this world’”?

You mean you didn't need me to write a book?! Drats! Foiled again!

Nothing.

exacty based on controlling humans....really if one is taught or conditioned to think they are of value and viable and worthwhile to the whole, the chances of one doing"evil" in staying with the label of the moment... is seriously the last concern you would have....How ironic that it befuddles so many that they create the very things that they deem 'evil'.....that is where the inquiry would most beneficailly be approached.....Certainly a human who has been repeatedly told they are worthless, have no hope of being without sin would most definitly be a high risk for dysfunctional behaviors....

exactly,

or maybe not.

we need to clearly define what we mean by opposite. If we look at the action that is defined as "serial killing", and say it is a series of single killings, should we focus on the series, the killings or the series of killings. If the opposite of killing one of your own kind is to give life to one of your own kind, then the opposite of killing one of your own is procreating. If the opposite of a serial act is a parallel act (all events done simultaniously), then we are looking for an event of multiple occurances at once. As we digress down this path of arbitrary silliness, we might reach the conclusion the opposite of the serial killer is the parallel impregnator (which could include concepts such as an organ doner saving several lives).

Of course this has not addressed intent. If serial killer X had an intent we defined as opposite to serial killer Y, then is serial killer X the opposite of serial killer Y? (he would be in intent by definition).

So yes, there is not an opposite of the serial killer.

The exact opposite of a serial killer would be someone who creates life instead of ending it.

if only it were so simple cade,

does that mean the person working to artificially impregnate endangered species is the opposite of a serial killer, or is the man who has many offspring the opposite (ghengis fathered so many offspring that he is credited with siginficantly affecting the modern asian genepool - for those interested: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...4_genghis.html).

ghengis also killed a lot of people as well though, so is the opposite of ghengis, ghengis?

That sounds about right.

A serial killing is a person who kills a lot people. Killing means you caused someones death...so the opposite of that would be causing someone to be born.

So what if this man ghengis did both? I where black shoes with white socks...I can do one thing while doing the opposite.

Thank you for the Genghis links.

But wouldn't that then present the paradox!? The person working to artificially continue the gene pool of an endangered species, is opposite of the serial killer that eliminates members of the gene pool exponentially. And yet could it be said that that endangered species wouldn't be endangered, if it weren't for overpopulation of the human gene pool. So then is the serial killer that dual component that balances in the elimination of populations, that are populating at a rate that extinguishes the sustenance of other species!?

I see it like this, the opposite of the serial killer is the parent/loved-ones of the child/children that have been murdered.

Our lives are measured through our own perspectives, our own perspective is the sum of our own consciousness, the worst violation we can do is invade/change another persons destiny through our own intentions.

Hitler was but one man, thousands of people acted on his behalf where they as bad or worse than him for doing what they did? Just exactly how many people died at Hitler’s own hand compared to dieing because of his will?

Its those who have a higher state of consciousness that have the WOW factor and its those same people who should work to inspire the rest who seem to struggle to attain an individual perspective/consciousness.

The sheep and the Shepard’s come to mind.
Ciao….

The question remains unanswered, although many have attempted arbitrary philosophical viewpoints on both the question and the ability of the question to be answered.

This is a good example of how people get wrapped up in the spider webs of their own thought process. And whats even more frustrating about these responses is the fact that many who have responded make claims in other threads to be able to differentiate between what’s good and what’s not, yet when I now ask “how does one go about being good?” I get evasive speculations about what’s good and evil. Aside from the poorly constructed philosophical views concerning good and evil, we get tongue and cheek responses to questions that are fairly straight forward and even grade school children have enough common sense to submit a genuine response to.

I would have expected the physician response.
I wound have expected a hypothetical “lottery winner that gives the earnings to someone else” response.
I would have expected the “give your live for someone else.” response.
I would have expected the “Spend your life in humanitarian service.” response.

Stop playing and buckle down. Most of you pride yourselves as “free thinkers” so FREE THINK. I’m looking for something solid, something real and doable. Everyone wants to spend all day discussing abstract theology and philosophy rather than 10 minutes of real gritty thought about how to actually carry out “good”. My challenge is for you to dig down, IF YOU CAN, and come up with a plausible and performable plot for doing “good”.

I want something creative. Not foggy or general. Be specific. This challenge has been issued on other forums. I’m curious to see the comparing outcome.

REMEMBER….a plan not speculation. “What is the opposite of a serial killer?” and doing what will cause people to stop and say “There is wonderful good in this world?”




[center][/center]

But the thing is, if there is no answer to your question, how do we answer?

the answer is simple, you just don't like it!

good is a valuation you place on it. Ask willie picton if he did good. I bet he says he did, but allegedly confesses his bad was getting sloppy before gutting his 50th prostitute.

so to do good, do what you naturally do. if you kill, than killing is good. if you save, than saving is good. all of this is according to oneself of course, and that is the only real measure.

I can't believe you just said this. I mean... where do you go from here? I wonder if you realize how messed up this statement was. After this statement you loose the right to call anything "truly" good or bad. It null in voids any opinion you post as objective. You can't say religion is "truly" evil no matter what happened. You can't say Hitler was "truly" evil, no matter what he did.

It's a inhumane perspective in the guise of non sense philosophy. I hope you seriously reconsider your position. Maybe you're young. The age group in this forum tends to be 25 and under.

As for good and evil, the idea that “good” and “evil” are simply opinions is nonsensical. It’s grossly unscientific.

“Good” is the term for a action that benefits “life as a whole”.
“Evil” is a term that benefits a single individual or entity at the cost of the greater whole surrounding it.

If a bolt in my car remains intact under pressure then it does good.
But if it breaks (relieving itself of the pressure) then it does evil to the whole body.
We don’t commonly say “the bolt did evil” because we do not attribute the bolt with the ability to decide. If we did attribute the bolt with the decision to either hold together or let go then we would attribute the bolt’s letting go as evil.

Many will say “this does not apply to human emotions.” They are sorely misinformed. When a person does something they “naturally feel guilt for” guilt causes measurable problems in the human body. The persons deterioration not only affects that person but the whole social group around that person, damaging the entire whole.

This does not mean we should attempt to get rid of guilt because guilt is the bodies natural way of telling someone they have done harm to the greater whole of life. This morality is real. It’s concrete. It’s like the laws of flight. Even though there are different ways to fly does not mean the laws of flight are subjective. In some circumstances the rules about how to fly seem to contradict each other but careful observance of the circumstances surrounding the contradiction show it’s not actually a contradiction.

This morality does not end with yourself, your family, your tribe, your country, or even humanity. It even extends into the animal kingdom showing ourt consciences are tuned far beyond the twisted “individual” idea of morality.

A lot of people on this forum need to give up this idea. It might make you look “cool” in class or at a party but in real life it simply makes you look grossly twisted.

shake you up a bit, did it?

well, indeed that which benefits us is what we refer to as good.

well, the serial killer sees killing as benefiting him, and thus sees it as good.

the religious zealot sees killing the non-beleiver as protecting the faith, and thus as good.

it is relative.

I understand your fixation with absolutes. However, "good" and "evil" are opinions in that they are valuations the group or individual attaches to something (which is relative to the desires of the group or individual). Try it. Like I said, go look at the transcripts of interviews of serial killers and see what they describe as good and evil in their actions.

There is nothing "cool" about stating the abstact relativism by which humanity operates. Our collective consciousness is a thin veil we wear over the true animals within. It is a fragile dance held together by a fine string that of society.

So open your eyes and look beneath the veil and see the true humanity for what it is. Individuals work together not to advance the others, but for the preservation of self. These morals you parade on about are merely the genetic coding that remains from the results of the behaviours that enhanced survival rather than threatening survival. We work together for safety. Safety is not enhanced having "a fox in the chicken coop", thus those that tended to kill off other memebers of the pack were driven out or killed in turn. That is why there are so few of these people.

If you don't believe the statement I gave you, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your "illusion" of humanity. Those killers are not running amok singing "look at me, i am evil. i am going to be so evil today. look how evil i am" except in bad movies and those that are acting out of a drive to purposely discredit some "authority" portrayed as "good".

don't ask questions if you don't want the answers.

Exactly hyper, ironically thought that also when i read verix's post he was jostled his illusions abit......


verix you couldn't have a better opourtunity to challenge yourself then with Hyper...He's not afraid of a good jostle.....and you'll learn alot....

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that morality is relative to opinion, then you admit that morals are genetic coding that is left depicting the correct behavior to enhance survival. Do you see the contradiction?

You should not encourage him Sheri. I remember the story about your sister. Surely after that you know there are some things that are just evil.

i said classification of "good" and "evil" is relative, and based on opinion.

now, follow closely,

the basis for morality is in the genetic coding, THE BASIS.
This provides a foundation, but does not define how the individual (or group) expresses said "morality" (note this morality is merely an expression of survival, and what is good for survival is determined by the environment. This makes something good for survival for the individual but also makes something not good for survival for something else, for above all life requires death).

Also to clarify, it is not depicting "correct behaviour", but expressing the behaviours that in the past led to survival success. Dumb luck also leads to survival success! An "idiot" can successfully produce offspring. Does this mean you accept your basis of coding is that of an idiot? I doubt it. For not all idiots are successful, and not all that are successful are idiots. The same applies to serial killers.

Things are what they are. You are too attached to the need to see an evil, and a good, in some absolute. It is not there. Take whatever you see as this ideal good, and I can find you somebody that does not see it as good universally. For example, is giving life a measure of good? Not if scarce resources and overpopulation are putting survival of the group at risk. In which case, the group may view abortion or killing the newborn, or even killing the pregnant woman as good. AHHHH how can i suggest such things, you scream! Simple, the case of goodness is ultimately determined in the moment, a product of both genetic coding that led to the individuals present and the environmental conditioning of their lives up to that point.

You may find some comfort in thinking there is some external evil, that your can pinpoint and clearly define yourself as not, but be careful in doing so for in such act you not only have evil define you but you ignore how you are as much a part of it as it is of you. The answer is to find the natural flow within yourself, not within some external source, some arbitrary paradigm.

edit:

the way to have your absolute is to kill off all that which does not conform to your ideal.
thus you become the monster you cast out.

Verix, we do not call that man evil that killed my sister, it would serve no purpose to do so....

verix I know hyper very well, this is a sterling man with a standard of behavior few can aspire too, let alone actaully live.... if you are reading into this a lack of value placed on ones behaving you are misunderstanding, he shines a view on reality that few have challenged themselves to look at, heck he's done all the work for you verix, take a seat and listen i guarentee you will walk away richer at athe very least with something new to ponder........

Well said Hyper!!
I think you answered the question wonderfully!

We all have a "sense' of what good and evil is, good flows from the heart. Good doesn't need recognition for good happens in the absence of it. If you look for recognition of doing something good, then it becomes a tool in your chest of IOU's.

Blessings

Wow there are some terribly confused people in this world, not you verax, people posting about how there is no good.

Good people rarely get noticed, while bad people get their names placed in history books.

If you wanted to be a good person sign up to go to a poor country and help people, be it teaching or agricultural things.

as is said on this website, good is the difference between want and desire

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/foundatio...Good_Person.asp

do we want to eat healthy or do we desire a chocolate cake?

do you want wisdom or do you feel like watching tv?

Someone stalks the night looking for a victim…How does someone stalk the day looking for homeless people he can take to a shelter where they have have a bed, and food.

or "looking for an opportunity to brighten someones day" which could be as simple as stoping your car so someone can pull out of a parking lot, or helping someone pick up their stuff when they drop it.

Damn I hate when it wont allow me to edit,

To sum it up, being good would be doing the hard thing when everyone else is doing the easy thing,

Example everyone saying "there is no such thing as good" and being the only one willing to stand up and counter.

When all your friends are having sex before marriage, be the only one who doesnt.

when you know your friend is stealing from his parents, confront him.

while everyone is masterbating to porn on the internet, be one of the only people who have access to the internet to not allow it to happen.

Its much harder to be good then evil, which is probably why it was easier for you to see how one could be evil and couldnt see how one could be good.

always do what is ultimately true, good and just.

desty why does one steal????
What is evil in your sexuality??? dare I tell him how a sexual predator is created????


its much easieer to be naturally who you are which is valuable and worthwhile and a benefit to not only to yourself, but to all others.....as turtle very nicely put...whats hard is denying who you are that is the hard part..pretending you are evil and less than l and worthless.....


you know if one holds there own sexuality in high esteem they will not natuarlly do things that twould harm rself or others.....naturally....many don't know this, many speak from hearsay not personal experince.....


this bears repeating
"the way to have your absolute is to kill off all that which does not conform to your ideal.
thus you become the monster you cast out. hyper quote

Good and evil classifies itself. You are still contradicting yourself. Even if some idiots got through you are still attributing morality to “natures” voice telling us what positive behavior for social survival is, hence the fact murder is always illegal in every civilization. I know you’re trying your best to fit morality into a box of convenience that you can just pick up and set down at will, but it simply isn’t true.

Pulling back the veil? This is another example of people trying to make something go away by closing their eyes. You can say “Morality doesn’t exist. Morality doesn’t exist.” As much as you want but it doesn’t make it go away. The Richard Dawkins idea that morality is a misfiring social mechanism is ignoring the scientific facts. And ignoring the problem does not render benign the negative effects of immoral activity, no matter how tenaciously you tell yourself “It really doesn’t hurt!”

As for the quote at the bottom. It’s very unscientific. When you’re trying to achieve a goal you naturally eliminate all hinders your goal. When constructing a plane, the designer systematically eliminates any negative variables that could effect the planes ability to fly.

Very well put. This reply gives me hope.

one doesn't eliminate things one expounds on things enlarges their understanding to include all things. I see with you verix is a misunderstnading , trying to make points or rationalize all sorts of insanitys if we really are gonna talk here....listen its wonderful you have a standard of behaving a measure if you will to guage behaviors by, morals at its best can be a measuring stick, this is a good standard, to value life, all of life not just your life but all of life, this my friend is where morality ends......killing has come to be used for many things, and in many cases its encouraged... take eating animals for instance one doesnt' need to eat anmals to live, yet many do and justifiy this by adjusting their morals ( one bieng that animals are less then therefore subject to anything one wishes they don't have equal value0....) to suit the behavior..that is what hyper is saying verix.... every moral has been revised in jsut such a manner......

actually, you are classifying good and evil as you want/need/or were conditioned to see it.

you may want to re-evaluate your claim of murder being illegal in every civilization. those false absolutes will come back to bite. think of it this way, two social groups develop in two radically different environments. The outcome of each of these groups can very well be different sets of "morals". So much for absolutes. It is all relative to the individual/group. You don't have to look far for this either. Look at the differences between moral codes between street gangs and WASPS in major north americal cities.

i am not trying to fit morality anywhere. morality is as i said, not absolute, and ultimately defined by the individual in the moment. This is why two people put into the same situation will not respond EXACTLY the same. Now you may get together with those of like thought as yourself and say, "well, we all agree that we should behave this way:, but that is academic. I assure you when put into play, the differences between you will play out.

Pull back the veil then. Challenge yourself. I didn't say morality does not exist. It is a human construct, a codification of aggreed upon principles, but like I have already stated, this is just a loose framework and not absolute. Maybe you would like to look closely at the negative effects of some of the "moral activities" rendered upon those that subsribe to someone else's "absolute code"? You won't have to look far, for this is the root of all those things you were ranting about being evil.

Perhaps you would like to examine the difference between building a plane and proclaiming there is some absolute good or evil. these are vastly different concepts.

No actually they are not different. Again morality is scientific and it’s goal is the proper behavior for the health and prosperity of life. We are not separate from our environments.

As for your illustration about different circumstances. I never said (in fact quite the opposite) that a moral action did not depend upon circumstances. It always does. This does not mean there is no “more moral” choice or alternative. Let me put it this way.

Brazilian jujitsu is a combat grappling art in which each contestant must outmaneuver, overpower, or exhaust his opponent in order to attain victory. Now one expert might react one way to a situation and another in another but that does not mean there is not a correct response to the situation. It simply means one expert gets the job done better and more effectively than another. And compared to them all it seems Rickson Gracie is the most enlightened of them all since he has never suffered a defeat, even being well advanced in years to his young challengers. Or consider chess. Simply because one chooses one way and another chooses another does not mean there is no real way to win. In fact in the end it seemed a computer logically proved my point against the genius player.

As for a man made construct…come on. Do you really buy this? Like one day man woke up and said “you know, I think I want to feel guilty for killing my neighbor.” The conscience was there long before man decided to investigate what was actually right and what wasn’t.

I’m afraid this is going to have to be my last post for this evening so I’ll end with this. It seems to me that morality rather than theology is the great divide between theists and non-theists. This was noted recently by Francis Collins (head of the human genome project) and I agree with him. I’m comfortable with this being our true divide. It reveals a great deal. I think for your own health it would be good for you to reconsider your ideas concerning morality.

Cheers…

verix, the only thing that changes as you evolve is your idea (morality) of what serves you, and this is based on what you are trying to do.....

verix would it be immoral to not cover the human body for sheer joy of its nakedness???? would it be evil to cover the body's own beauty with clothing???

so jsut to be sure I am clearly understanding you, you are saying there is absolutely a good and evil no ifs ands or buts?????????

you are conditioning it again, v

"proper": this is again determined by the group or individual. There is not a "universal" morality.

"It seems to me that morality rather than theology is the great divide between theists and non-theists."

Now this is complete hogwash! Come along and play up some concept of superiority. Exactly were do you see non-theists going off and behaving in some great immoral manner? The fact that non-theists are not in reliance upon texts, concepts of absolute good and evil, et al and yet still have a solid capability to interperate with others demonstrates a great deal about who exactly is acting out of a balanced internal understanding of self and those that are ignorant of themselves and are mrerely operating because their masters have them on tight leashes (at least until the leash snaps).

Man survives well without these concepts of absolutes or your theologies, so try again.

on behalf of the NB's thanks for the kind words