There can be no Good without Evil

reply to post by Astyanax


You defined "evil" as an "act that causes avoidable suffering in a living being", there needs to be an agent in order for an evil action. If my decision to serve food results in avoidable suffering, and since you defined evil as such, then my actions are classified as evil. What I am getting at is that you cannot define evil as simply an action, there has to be something else involved, or in the apple slices examples, by your conditions, I would be evil. Hence, an evil person is someone whose actions result in the avoidable suffering of another living creature. I don't think this is an adequate definition.

reply to post by mirrormaker326

There are no evil people, only evil actions.

reply to post by Astyanax


So what makes an act evil? We are getting distracted by semantics. There are "acts", like the one I mentioned prior that fit your definition of evil, but are not what a "thinking person" would consider evil. If there are only evil acts not people, how does an act become evil? Does this mean that an animal can be evil? If acts are the only evil, then all predatory animals are such, as stalking, maiming, and eating prey definitely fits your definition. If a tiger killed and ate a man, we wouldn't waste our time discussing the inherent evil nature of large cats, but a serial killer who kills and eats a man has documentaries and books written about him, expounding on the nature of evil.

Acts cannot be evil by themselves, there has to be something more. Since you dismissed the existence of the Divine with the Problem of Evil, please tell me what Evil is.

reply to post by mirrormaker326


The way I see it, "evil" isn't the right term, because evil is viewed differently by various belief systems. To me, it's all about whether your action intentionally causes harm or suffering to others. If it does, then it is wrong, if not, then it's all good. That gets you past the animal loophole, since many animals have to kill on a daily basis to survive. It also gets you past the question of how does animal life compare with human life. If your action intentionally causes harm and suffering to another animal, it is still wrong.

reply to post by Barcs


Bingo, Intent is the key here. An "act" is qualified by the intent behind it. The outcome of an act is secondary to the intent. So with that being said, intentionality becomes the new piece to examine when trying to define "evil", but I think we are begging the question when trying to define evil. We are assuming some global form "Evil" exists, and then people use this to deny the existence of the Divine. An evil or immoral act is one with impure intentions.

How do we have to power to "intend"? This seems like a trivial component to consciousness, but I think it hints at what separates us from animals that operate purely on instinct.

reply to post by mirrormaker326

So what makes an act evil?

I already told you.

If there are only evil acts not people, how does an act become evil?

I already told you.

Does this mean that an animal can be evil?

There are no evil actors, only evil actions.

Please tell me what Evil is.

I already did.

reply to post by mirrormaker326

Intent is the key here. An "act" is qualified by the intent behind it.

'The end justifies the means' is an evil doctrine.

reply to post by Astyanax


You didn't answer anything, and when I pointed that out, you equivocated and split hairs. I was hoping that you might have a stronger defense of how the Problem of Evil is an issue for the existence of God, but I was wrong.

How you got that I was implying that the "ends justify the means" is a little baffling. That is what I was going to argue against, but seeing as how you won't engage after you have been challenged, I see that it is a waste of time.

A "thinking person" can see through your bull #, but apparently you are not interested in discussing these issues with someone who actually thinks.

Namaste

reply to post by mirrormaker326

You didn't answer anything.

I have already answered all the questions you asked. Essentially they were the same question, asked four times over. The answer was provided on the first time of asking, and not once but twice – once by me and once again by SeekerOfTruth101.

It seems the problem is that you do not wish to accept the answer you've been given. You still haven't tabled a valid objection to it, though. Until you do, the answer stands.

How you got that I was implying that the "ends justify the means" is a little baffling.

When you judge an act based on its intention, you implicitly assert that ends justify means.

Apparently you are only interested in discussing these issues with someone who actually thinks.

You got it!

reply to post by Astyanax


You defined evil, and I showed your definition was flawed, and asked for a more thorough explanation which you did not provide. Your answers were circular, and when pressed, you only doubled down on the circularity. Please explain how "the ends justify the means" can be derived from my comment on how intent determines the morality of an action. If it implicitly follows, then enlighten me, Siddhartha, and show me the logical trail. I did not make such a claim, and you are completely misunderstanding my argument if that is the conclusion you have forced upon it.

I am not worried about the OP's answer, I asked you, and just because you claim that you answered a question, does not mean you did, and you did not engage with my very sound objections, which shows you don't have an answer for them.

How did 'Evil' came about?

For the religious faithful, whom had held on to their faith, would know far more, based upon studies and comprehension of ancient records left behind by our ancient ancestors of every mainstream religion since civilisation began 5000 years ago.

Within the ancient hebrew Chronicles, in the book of Genesis, it tells of immortal beings, created by our common Creator, whom had misused their powers, corrupted themselves and humankind away from civilisation teachings that were taught by Him, and they were then cast out, with some or even all of them placed in chains to pay for their crimes for a thousand years as penace. These unrepentant few were known as the Fallen, or Forsaken, amongst many other names.

At this point, some, and even Christians may ponder - why not just destroy them once and for all to cleanse humankind?

In order to answer, let's look towards something that we all can relate so that more may understand - computer technology,

One can create a computer programme for certain tasks to function. Should there suddenly be a corruption in the coding in parts of the programme, espacially if it is large chunk, then that programme cannot be salvaged, and would have to be deleted and replaced with a better programme entirely.

Similarly so for mankind. The Forsaken had corrupted themselves as well as a significant chunk of mankind. To destroy evil would be to wipe out the entire human race, and perhaps even our solar system.

Fortunately, our Creator has compassion and mercy for us. Rather than to do that, He imprisoned the Forsaken, destroy those of evil disposition, took whomever of mankind that can be taught civilisational ways, and allowed humanity to progress till today. He gave us free will to choose, and those acts by the Forsaken and their Darkfriends were meant as a record of what happens when we make the wrong choices - suffering and pain to oneself and others, even if He did not lift a finger to punish us.

In both the old and new testaments, the books speak of them and their existance in various forms.

Today, the taint of the Forsaken's evil still live within humanity, and worse, some of those unrepentant Forsaken immortals may be living amongst us, leading man astry. They are not stupid to make themselves stand out in crowd such as monster appearances, display of super-powers, etc. They are insidious, look like us, and keep low profiles. Their intent is to do evil - to destroy, destruct, leaving a remnant to serve them.

Look around you and you would have realized the reality of their acts - evil.

Serfdoom, denial of knowledge/education, religious subversion, impoverisation of the many by the few, ethnic divisions and murders, etc. They had misused religion, had fooled muslims enmassed into supporting the extermination of mankind, but fortunately, muslims today had woken up.

They had fooled faithful Christians, into supporting them with massive funds and political control, Fortunately, many in America's bible belt are awakening.

They had fooled the masses, using political control for their own wealth by enslavement of mankind. Fortunately, many working adults saw through those deceptions.

I can list more, but many will get the point.

This information is meant to be shared with only the religious faithfuls, because they had acknowledged our Creator in their hearts.

For those who have yet to do so, they are still are fellow humans, whom will know our common Creator with free will, in His time and not yours or mine. They may not accept such information, comprehensibly so for it is their choice, but they are still deserving of protection from evil.

They by themselves are not evil, but if they do not what is evil, they will only muddle through and become canon fodder by others. Thus mankind was given secular laws, which were actually gleaned from civilisational teachings, which they can comprehend and subscribe to in the meantime, to share common aims in life for progress and evolution, to know what is good and bad, to make choices with their free will, through Rule of Law, which progresses as evolution climbs but without allowing evil to triumph.

The fight between good and evil, Light and Dark, had been wage by mankind for centuries. Should evil ever triumph, then like the computer code analogy, all mankind will have to be absolutely wiped out and destroyed in order to cleanse and protect the Universe. It would be an act of mercy by Him to end the sufferings and pains endured by those few whom sought to keep the faith, but overwhelmed by Evil.

reply to post by mirrormaker326

You defined evil, and I showed your definition was flawed.

No, you didn't. You only think you did.

Please explain how "the ends justify the means" can be derived from my comment on how intent determines the morality of an action.

Work it out for yourself. It's not that hard.

You did not engage with my very sound objections, which shows you don't have an answer for them.

If you feel that is the truth, then it is your truth. Take it and farewell.

Good and Evil are just invented human concepts.

The definition of Good fits the explanation of liberation. The definition of Evil fits the explanation of restriction. A person is good if he liberates people. A person is evil if he restricts the freedom of people. No big deal. Anyone is good and evil.

There can be no 'good' without 'evil'???

Why exactly? In what period of time, among who? I'm not convinced that statement is totally accurate.

As regards 'choices' too, my life experience has shown me that not only the types of choices but the ability to even make 'choices' is radically different among people, and even virtually non-existant in some with various brain disorders, those suffering severe neurological damage, or even in some cases those living with extreme mental/emotional scarring that may not have been of their own making,

'Free will"??? Is it the same in everyone? Is the will of those coherced just as 'free' as the will of those not?

reply to post by Astyanax


Was there ever any man thus beaten out of season,
When in the why and the wherefore is neither rhyme nor reason?

Billy Shakespeare -- A Comedy of Errors

reply to post by Tecumte

There can be no 'good' without 'evil'??? Why exactly?

The suggestion is that good and evil are conceptual opposites, and that we would not be able to define or perceive one except in relation to the other. I agree that this is a conjecture based on unexamined premises and it could very well be wrong. However, since we all know good and evil from our own experience, it doesn't make any practical difference whether the proposition is true or not.

It is a bit cynical to suggest, as the OP seems to do, that it is necessary for there to be evil in the world in order for us (or for God) to be good.

'Free will"??? Is it the same in everyone? Is the will of those coerced just as 'free' as the will of those not?

I have to say I never see the exercise of free will in others – whenever I observe somebody else speak or act rationally, it is clear that they are acting under the impetus as well as the constraints of current circumstances, history and genetics. When they act irrationally it is usually under the influence of some drug, hormone or mental trauma. Either way, their will does not seem very free.

When I perceive myself speak or act, on the other hand, I strongly feel as though my chosen actions are freely willed. I perceive myself weighing facts, considering circumstances, making decisions and acting on them. Quite the man of decision, me.

But when I review all later, in tranquillity, I notice those same forces – circumstances, history and genetics – have influenced my behaviour, too. Often it is clear to me that I could not have acted any other way than that in which I did.

One of the proposed solutions to the Problem of Evil is that free will is a good thing and we recognize it as such, and that is why our Creator has endowed us with it. The price of free will, however, is that we often make the wrong choices, do the wrong things, and hence pain and suffering – evil – come into the world. God could eradicate evil pain and suffering, but only at the cost of extinguishing our free will, which would turn us into his unthinking puppets – so He doesn't, much as it pains Him to look down upon our suffering.

There are several serious objections to this view, which you can probably work out for yourself. However, the whole argument collapses if it turns out there is no free will after all...

reply to post by mirrormaker326

Was there ever any man thus beaten out of season,
When in the why and the wherefore is neither rhyme nor reason?

Billy Shakespeare -- A Comedy of Errors

How now sir! is your merry humour alter'd?
As you love strokes, so jest with me again.

Same play, same act, same scene.

Same author too; by the way, his friends called him Will, not Billy.

reply to post by Astyanax


Better to shun the bait than struggle in the snare.-- William Blake

You've internalized Blake's words and employ them as a tactic. You feel your definition of Evil is adequate and I don't. This discussion has accomplished everything it ever will, and continuing at this point is an exercise in futility.

There is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth". The truth of this thread is that we will not agree, and no number of smug retorts will change that.

Originally posted by Tecumte
There can be no 'good' without 'evil'???

Why exactly? In what period of time, among who? I'm not convinced that statement is totally accurate.

As regards 'choices' too, my life experience has shown me that not only the types of choices but the ability to even make 'choices' is radically different among people, and even virtually non-existant in some with various brain disorders, those suffering severe neurological damage, or even in some cases those living with extreme mental/emotional scarring that may not have been of their own making,

'Free will"??? Is it the same in everyone? Is the will of those coherced just as 'free' as the will of those not?

Since civilisation began, there had been free will and choices to choose between good and evil.

The Greeks knew even what was beauty and ugliness, as examplified by their arts and culture. Because of their individualism, they could not unite and often led to wars amongst the different houses. Death, chaos and mayhem ruled often. Similar with every civilisation, east and west, on Earth since then till today.

Even prisoners have free will, let alone the worst political doctrines that had scourged Earth. A prisoner no doubt cannot choose to be free, for he had committed a societal wrong and need to be rehabilitated, but he still have a choice to be on his best behaviour to earn parole, don't give problem to himself and others, OR he can choose to be punk in prison, create pain and suffering to others and to himself, leading not only to a lengthening of sentence, but to him becoming a choice of others to smash his head against to wall to end his life for the misery he caused to others.

Every human has the gift of free will, even when faced with the worst moral dilemmas of life. It is the choices that one makes which with determine if it had been a good one or an evil one once he acts upon it. And in order to know what is good or evil, we have to be taught by others whom had experience it and found success or suffering to help us choose, or to experience it ourselves and learn from it, pay the price in cash or kind, in order to progress and evolve.

The only time one has no free will and cannot make a choice is when at the point of mortal death, the last breathe. Beyond that, it will be another metaphysical discussion of a different topic and nature...

I can't see the video, but I hope this is it. You are way late on creating this thread, Eddie Murphy beat you to it!