This topic is in the Religion, Faith, And Theology discussion forum.  (rss)


Good and Evil. Why do they exist?




Topic started on 28-1-2006 @ 08:34 AM by MacDonagh


I've been thinking of the nature of good and evil. Is it a purely human concept that we have created to tell the difference between a person's intentions/morals or deeds? Or did God create good and evil? If so why?

Discuss. It's giving me a headache.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 28-1-2006 @ 08:50 AM by hatchedcross


Well I see it, and I'm sure many do, as a balance. Like ying and yang. Otherwise the unbalance would create chaos or something.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 28-1-2006 @ 09:20 AM by IAF101



Originally posted by MacDonagh
I've been thinking of the nature of good and evil. Is it a purely human concept that we have created to tell the difference between a person's intentions/morals or deeds? Or did God create good and evil? If so why?

Discuss. It's giving me a headache.

MacDonagh,
The question you have asked has been asked since the beginning o philosophical thought.
Good - Evil << what are they ?
That is the question that you must answer first in order to understand why they exist. I have asked this same question and have deliberated over it for many years and I have found MY answer. You must find your own answer !!

What MY answer would be is;
There is no good or evil, these are mere means adopted by all in order to acquire power to maintain their place in the world or just situations that present themselves to us and we perceive them according to our own position in the situation as good or evil. For example, there are two kinds of morality, the predator and the prey. For the predator it is good to hunt and kill its prey and to relish this is also good but for the prey the predator is evil and any that prey upon it are also seen as evil. Both the predator and the prey would be perfectly right in their own right, no disputing that. Similar is the case in human society and in the situations that are brought up in human society. The first morality is active, creative, Dionysian. The second is passive, defensive,--to it belongs the “struggle for existence". Concepts of good and evil are therefore, in their origin, merely a means to an end, they are expedients for acquiring power.
If you are really interested you could, read:
Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche & The Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche.
At least these are what I have found to be extremely enlightening and have provided a direction that organized religion fails to display. They might be a bit convoluted to understand but keep at it and once you understand you will see the answer.
[BTW these are available for free as E-books on the net I think! At least the first book is. ]

Oh and " hath thou not yet heard of it, that GOD IS DEAD! " (Thus spake Zarathrusta, 2)



IAF>

[edit on 28-1-2006 by IAF101]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 28-1-2006 @ 12:57 PM by MacDonagh


Nietsche was insane wasn't he? I heard an incident about him breaking into a church while it was in service and screaming at the folk in it for believing in a deity.
To be honest, I think that good and evil are concepts made to distinguish the differences of morals between people. Probebly...



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 28-1-2006 @ 01:05 PM by LaoTzu


I think in the lines of Socrates/Plato. Good/Evil = the same thing. They are 2 parts of the same "idea" so basically halves of the idea of good/bad. Same as in big/small, or hate/love. Two opposites create one idea.

Same goes in some popular Eastern thought, such as the yin/yang. Which also symbolizes what Plato was thinking, shows the nature of opposites working together to form one idea.

As for myself, and what I think.... I have no clue.



[edit on 28-1-2006 by LaoTzu]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 29-1-2006 @ 03:19 AM by IAF101



Originally posted by MacDonagh
Nietsche was insane wasn't he? I heard an incident about him breaking into a church while it was in service and screaming at the folk in it for believing in a deity.


Nietzsche was by all means unconventional and radical but his ideas are sound. His work almost mystical and not many understood him. A life of solitude and illness coupled with academic isolation took him to the edge. But never the less all his work was done when he was sane.
From what little I have read of his works I found it to be very influencial indeed.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 29-1-2006 @ 04:36 PM by queenannie38


Consciousness is a direct result of juxtaposition and experience of contrast.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 










Top Topics Right Now:



Active Topics Right Now:



ATS MIX Podcasts:











Newest Topics:












ATS Thread Tag System
Members can add a custom descriptive tag to any thread on ATS. Thread Tags will help categorize our site content, help to cross-reference similar threads, and improve the searchability of all ATS threads. This thread is currently defined by these tags:

, , , , ,
















ATS Server: www4.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.003 seconds
Page processed in 0.090 seconds
7 total database queries (1)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.





thread