What is the definition of universal Good and Evil?

[Corvus]

What I am asking here is what exactly is the definition of universal good and evil? What qualities or actions marks God as good, and what actions or qualities marks Satan as evil in universal terms.

The reason I ask this is that good and evil, on earth, seem to be associated with following God's law. If that is so, what defines God's nature as undeniably good?

[Archangel__7]

I suppose I'd answer Euthypro's problem by suggesting that goodness is reflective of God's unchanging character. God, by definition is necessarily Good, and so he will not act contrary to his character. So it would not do to superimpose any idea that because "whatever God does is good", then all his acts must be arbitrary, and tyrannical. To define an entity as such would not be describing God anymore. Secondly, He doesn't appeal to a standard that is outside of himself, for if he did, then he wouldn't be God, would he? The theist simply says, “No... you're thinking of the wrong person... THAT higher standard is God." Due to our inability to physically point to an entity, we are bound to use descriptive and abstract language, and so once again, should we begin talking about an entity that appeals to some standard outside oneself for the measure of goodness, we're not talking about God anymore.

The qualities and actions of what is good is most vividly demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus as he lays out by speech and example how one can identify with the true intent of goodness.

Evil can best be described as the privation of Good. This is not to be confused with the absence of Good. Here, we mean that evil is the perversion or corruption of what is good. Evil, in effect, doesn't really have substance, but is a property we assign to an act or state of affairs which reflect a warped conscience. While Good has essence, Evil is the privation, the perversion, the corruption of that essence. Here's why this is crucial:
Lets compare "good" to a t-shirt. Then is evil the absence of that t-shirt? No. Evil would then be best described as moth-holes within the t-shirt.

...heh.. well, there's my haphazard attempt...

[Corvus]

That still fails to explain why exactly, or how, God is good.

[adherent]

Which God are you talking about? The Christian God is good where as the embodiement of evil is Satan. Evolutionists don't believe/care about morals or what is good or evil so they don't really count. Um... God is good because if he exists then he sets the rules of good and evil and thus defines himself as good, and he gets to set the rules because he was here from the beginning. As I see you are a deist, you need to define what you think of as a god. If a god is omnipotent for you, then i have hopefully answered you on that, but if a god for you is just like the greek gods, well then, they are nothing more than super-humans. Also are you a creationist or evolutionist?

[Corvus]

Which God are you talking about? The Christian God is good where as the embodiement of evil is Satan. Evolutionists don't believe/care about morals or what is good or evil so they don't really count.

Er... no. I am an evolutionist and I define good and evil in terms of what benefits and harms a society, which I have to live in.

And yes, I am referring to the Christian God.

Um... God is good because if he exists then he sets the rules of good and evil and thus defines himself as good, and he gets to set the rules because he was here from the beginning.

Then to achieve goodness is to achieve the same sort of power God has, to define good and evil through omnipotency?

[Archangel__7]

Just what do we mean by "good"?
From outside the Christian perspective, this indeed becomes nearly impossible to answer in any real meaningful way. However, this hasn't stopped people from trying. Various attempts have emerged throughout the centuries to construct the political formula that would strike the perfect balance between law and liberty.

Corvus, "Epicurean" is not what immediately comes to mind when I examine your theory of ethics. Unless, of course, you would desire to be consistent and recant some of your previous comments. A consistent epicurean places hedonism as the highest ethic... to attain maximum pleasure and minimum pain for the self. Epicureanism alone provides no discretion when the pursuit of pleasure may cause pain in others. To properly categorize your statements, I'd suggest Utilitarianism seems closer to your tastes....Maximum good for the maximum number of people [See Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)]. Yet even this is not free from serious weakness.

First of all, this is very much a results-oriented ethic. If a man were to be drowning in a river, an attempt to rescue the man would not in and of itself be a "good" act. The act is good if and only if the end result is good. Failure to succeed would make the attempt "bad", as it were.

Secondly, how does a human being (who can only rarely predict short-term consequences) determine what will result from his actions in the long run? Many evil actions (lying, cheating, etc) seem to “work” for people for long periods of time. Does this make them right? Second, how long is the "long run"? If it means the remote future or end of the world, then it is too out of reach to be of any help in making decisions today. But if it means the near future, then that would justify obviously evil things which work well for a short time (corrupt governments, cruelty, and deception).

Finally, even when the results are obvious, how does one know they are “good” results unless he has some standard of good beyond the results? But if there is a norm for rightness or wrongness beyond the results, then the results as such do not determine rightness.

So I see your questions as very appropriate, as from your vantage point, I can understand why it can be difficult to grasp how any claim to an objective moral standard is meaningful if God has no interaction with humanity. I think to come to a reliable standard apart from God has been the "holy grail" for the humanist, yet realizing the futility of the search, he simply champions relativism as though it were somehow an achievement.

Now what about the Christian worldview? Is it any better off? I think it's important to provide some necessary elaboration. I was a bit confused concerning your further insistence in light of my response. I thought perhaps what is needed is simply making an invitation to a local church bible study where people learn and discuss those very issues on a weekly basis. Nevertheless, I suppose I could offer another brief glimpse of how this works out.

It's fascinating to think that whenever we affix our attention to all the theorizings in forums such as these, we see such a variety of conflicting values. Why is it so difficult to come to an agreement on what “good" is, and what makes anything good? Here I introduce to you Spanish philosopher Fernando Savater.

"In many cases, to call someone 'good' implies a mere docility, a tendency to agree and give no trouble. A 'good' person is one who changes the records or CDs while the others dance, things like that. To some, to be good means to be resigned, patient; but others think of a good person as one who is outgoing, original, who says what he thinks when he wants, no matter if he gives offense. In countries like South Africa, for example, some will consider good those blacks who do not give trouble and accept apartheid, while others will apply the word only to followers of Nelson Mandela. And do you know why it is not at all easy to say when a human being is good or not? Because we don't know what human beings are for."

(Emphasis added)

This is why C.S. Lewis says when a ship goes out to high seas, they must answer three questions:

Why are we out here in the first place? ...Essential ethics (purpose).

How do we keep from sinking? ...Individual Ethics

How do we keep from bumping into other ships? ...Social Ethics

And unless one really has a sense of purpose, everything else becomes merely a secondary notion. What answers then does Christ offer to us? We are individuals with dignity in essence; and freedom, even with its risks, has been endowed upon us by our Creator. But with that recognition comes a responsibility. Reason and intuition are only pointers to the need for morality, but it is only on the character of God that morality is based. Just as God cannot self-destruct because He is pure goodness, so in drawing from His character we can avoid the breakdown of our own lives and the destruction of our purpose. God provides the blueprint of what life was intended to be. He not only shows us in His commands what we must do, but in His person what it is to BE. He clothes us with dignity and guards the dignity of everyone, regardless of origin or creed. Freedom is given, but tempered by mutual respect and justice. The moral relativist dares to flirt with the ultimate danger of destruction of purpose. Life is sacred and the particulars will disintegrate if the basis for them is destroyed.

[adherent]

Corvus:
Then to achieve goodness is to achieve the same sort of power God has, to define good and evil through omnipotency?

My response to this is God being good is unquestionable. Its like part of his definition. Same as if we asked: Why is a circle round? Well... it's part of the circles definition to be round so our question was kinda redundant. You see, all humans (yes, im including myself) like to view things on a human defined basis so if something is not in line with what we know to be true or something even remotely possible (like there being a god) then we just are driven insane and then start questioning based on our limited human intelligence. My God does not care about us being "good" so much as being a believer and going to heaven. I guess you could thus say that the definition of "good" for christians is: Believing that Jesus died on the cross and saved us from our sins and thus secures us a place in heaven.

[Corvus]

Corvus, "Epicurean" is not what immediately comes to mind when I examine your theory of ethics. Unless, of course, you would desire to be consistent and recant some of your previous comments. A consistent epicurean places hedonism as the highest ethic... to attain maximum pleasure and minimum pain for the self. Epicureanism alone provides no discretion when the pursuit of pleasure may cause pain in others.

One moment. I think you are making a common mistake and confusing Epicureanism with its more decadent predecessor, Cyrenaicism. Epicureanism esteems moderation, and balancing pleasures and pains, and, in a way, some of its philosophy seems influenced by the stoics. One example is that pleasures are usually defined as intellectual, not sensual, and that achieving pleasure should mean minimizing disquietude. It prefers friendship to love, because love is the most tumultuous. It is about achieving tranquility through happiness. Material pleasures like murder and thievery were frowned upon. Yes, there is absolutely discretion when the pursuit of pleasure may cause pain in others, or even where it may have the risk of causing pain in ourselves.

First of all, this is very much a results-oriented ethic. If a man were to be drowning in a river, an attempt to rescue the man would not in and of itself be a "good" act. The act is good if and only if the end result is good. Failure to succeed would make the attempt "bad", as it were.

I would classify the attempt” bad” too. But understand, I don’t think, because of this uncertainty, the utilitarianist would not try.

Many evil actions (lying, cheating, etc) seem to “work” for people for long periods of time. Does this make them right? Second, how long is the "long run"? If it means the remote future or end of the world, then it is too out of reach to be of any help in making decisions today. But if it means the near future, then that would justify obviously evil things which work well for a short time (corrupt governments, cruelty, and deception).

This shows a faulty understanding of utilitarianism. Remember, the meaning of the philosophy is the maximum good for the maximum amount of people. I would consider a white lie, when selfless, and not for the purpose of saving one’s own image, as, depending on severity, justified. “Your hair looks nice, did you have it cut?”

Finally, even when the results are obvious, how does one know they are “good” results unless he has some standard of good beyond the results? But if there is a norm for rightness or wrongness beyond the results, then the results as such do not determine rightness.

You say that with certainty, but it’s far from it.

Now what about the Christian worldview? Is it any better off? I think it's important to provide some necessary elaboration. I was a bit confused concerning your further insistence in light of my response.

Well, you define God as the definition of goodness. The problem is there is no definition of god other than, “supreme being”. If God is goodness, what is goodness, and if God is goodness, what defines God as good. Being supreme?

It's fascinating to think that whenever we affix our attention to all the theorizings in forums such as these, we see such a variety of conflicting values. Why is it so difficult to come to an agreement on what “good" is, and what makes anything good? Here I introduce to you Spanish philosopher Fernando Savater.

"In many cases, to call someone 'good' implies a mere docility, a tendency to agree and give no trouble. A 'good' person is one who changes the records or CDs while the others dance, things like that. To some, to be good means to be resigned, patient; but others think of a good person as one who is outgoing, original, who says what he thinks when he wants, no matter if he gives offense. In countries like South Africa, for example, some will consider good those blacks who do not give trouble and accept apartheid, while others will apply the word only to followers of Nelson Mandela. And do you know why it is not at all easy to say when a human being is good or not? Because we don't know what human beings are for."
(Emphasis added)

This is why C.S. Lewis says when a ship goes out to high seas, they must answer three questions:

Why are we out here in the first place? ...Essential ethics (purpose).

How do we keep from sinking? ...Individual Ethics

How do we keep from bumping into other ships? ...Social Ethics

The latter two are where God seems to have no place. As you have remarked, we all have differing ethics systems to make our time on this earth, and this earth alone, more bearable, usually with the due consideration of other people in mind.

God occupies a unique position, since he is both the flagship every other ship should watch, and the storm, or the waters. He has the capability to make every moment smooth sailing, but instead chooses not to. This suggests the seafaring is a game or test.

But as to the first question, why are we out here, I have previously posted a similar question, and got no real response. It is God’s fault, is the common answer, and His ways are mysterious.

I try to answer by claiming pleasure as the reason for living – and in one way or another, every one of our actions hinges on it, even selfless deeds. I don’t know what human beings are for, and nor do Christians, unless you can come up with an answer, so I simply say, “I think therefore I am, and if I do not think, I am not. So I will think, and feed my self, for self is all that is in existence.”

And unless one really has a sense of purpose, everything else becomes merely a secondary notion. What answers then does Christ offer to us? We are individuals with dignity in essence; and freedom, even with its risks, has been endowed upon us by our Creator. But with that recognition comes a responsibility. Reason and intuition are only pointers to the need for morality, but it is only on the character of God that morality is based. Just as God cannot self-destruct because He is pure goodness, so in drawing from His character we can avoid the breakdown of our own lives and the destruction of our purpose. God provides the blueprint of what life was intended to be. He not only shows us in His commands what we must do, but in His person what it is to BE. He clothes us with dignity and guards the dignity of everyone, regardless of origin or creed. Freedom is given, but tempered by mutual respect and justice.

Yet I still have no idea what defines God’s character as intrinsically good. What you have said here is that we are special people given freedom, which comes with great responsibility. You follow by telling us God is the source of morality, and by following his commands, we achieve goodness.

But morality is usually defined as rules of conduct. Good, in human terms, (and in the way Christ taught) is about the treatment of the other people who inhabit your world. Good, in human terms, usually has to do with minimizing harm to others, and maximizing their happiness. God, in order to be good, must be able to experience happiness and suffering.

If no one existed except God, good would not exist. If God is all-powerful, and the definition of good, it follows that he would stop needless suffering. You, by previous examples, have shown that morality should not be just about actions, but about intent. But since God’s intent is unknowable, it’s impossible to say with any certainty if he is good or not.

Is power tempered by responsibility what you define as good? Then a slave, who has little control over his actions, is not good, but evil? But then, duty to God could just as easily be defined as the goodness of man, so the subject gets confusing.

I think the problem here is a lack of definitions.

Fill the blank. Universal good (not human good) is defined as ________ (and don't say god)

God is defined as ___________ (and don't say good).

The guiding principle behind God's goodness is _____________ (just as the guiding principle behind my goodness is maximising pleasure for all and one.).

Hopefully we can proceed from there.

[Archangel__7]

I thought it might be polite to ask here, but do you mind terribly a lengthy response? ... I'm not one to intentionally drown people in a sea of words, and I assure you I by no means intend to hold you hostage to some unspoken expectation of a quick response when so much is offered as an answer to your inquiries...

Much of it will involve light reading, and it won't read like a techinal paper complete with heavy footnotes...

[Corvus]

I don't mind at all, Archangel. However, try to be as direct as you can. Sometimes I too am not exactly brief, and I can sympathise that this is a subject that requires some length in responses.