Good or Evil?

[SpikedLillac]

Are people naturally good or evil and why? If people are good then why are there murders, rapists, liars, theives, adulterers, ect? We've all done bad things, are we evil? We did choose to do those things after all. Are we evil?

[McCulloch]

What do you mean by the terms good and evil?

Do not use just examples but provide a general definition. Without a general definition, we can only debate why there are murders, rapists, liars, thieves and adulterers.

[AClockWorkOrange]

People seem to be pretty neutral, really.

What is considered "good" or "evil" are simply the ways in which individuals react to their respective societies with regards to medical history, social rearing, and individual need.

[Cephus]

There's no such thing as 'good' and 'evil', the terms are subjective. What one person considers to be good may be considered as evil by others and vice versa. Hitler certainly thought he was doing God's will by slaughtering the Jews. Most others think he was evil. Prove one side was right.

[Confused]

There's no such thing as 'good' and 'evil', the terms are subjective. What one person considers to be good may be considered as evil by others and vice versa. Hitler certainly thought he was doing God's will by slaughtering the Jews. Most others think he was evil. Prove one side was right.

I have to agree with Cephus here. I don't think anyone will be able to agree on a defintion of what acts are good and what are evil. The intention behind the act is very subjective but directly defines the act. You might consider me sticking a 14g
needle in someones chest evil, but if I was doing it to relieve a cardiac tamponade, then it is good.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi All

Utilitarian and Kantian philosophers usually turn up on ethical committees.

Utilitarian usually means trying to behave in such a way as to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number. So a utilitarian might be persuaded to assassinate Hitler because of all the lives and suffering that would be prevented. So some murders might then argued as a good thing. Anybody acting selfishness against the benefit of others would be bad.

Kantians seek a categorical imperative or universal rule to apply to any given instance. The thinking goes something like - do not murder, because if everyone became a murderer then that would be the end of humanity. So being a murderer would then be self defeating. Thus if everyone should not do it -then don't do it. Therefore don't assassinate Hitler. All Murder is bad.

Existentialist like Sartre think you cannot be a self conscious being without recognizing the eye of others are watching you. So anti social behavior might be acting in spite of being conscious of what you are doing, or not being fully conscious of that you are doing. So the argument is not defined in terms of good and evil but consciousness of what you are doing.

I'd take that point further and say to be fully conscious we need to be conscious of others in themselves. For me empathy is the key to being moral. (NB Kant said almost the exact opposite. So I'm not a Kantian, for this reason and for logical reasons.)

So in a modern western society where food is plentiful, education is universal, do we have any excuses for not behaving with empathy towards our fellow humans?

[Confused]

Hi All

Utilitarian and Kantian philosophers usually turn up on ethical committees.

Utilitarian usually means trying to behave in such a way as to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number. So a utilitarian might be persuaded to assassinate Hitler because of all the lives and suffering that would be prevented. So some murders might then argued as a good thing. Anybody acting selfishness against the benefit of others would be bad.

Kantians seek a categorical imperative or universal rule to apply to any given instance. The thinking goes something like - do not murder, because if everyone became a murderer then that would be the end of humanity. So being a murderer would then be self defeating. Thus if everyone should not do it -then don't do it. Therefore don't assassinate Hitler. All Murder is bad.

Existentialist like Sartre think you cannot be a self conscious being without recognizing the eye of others are watching you. So anti social behavior might be acting in spite of being conscious of what you are doing, or not being fully conscious of that you are doing. So the argument is not defined in terms of good and evil but consciousness of what you are doing.

I'd take that point further and say to be fully conscious we need to be conscious of others in themselves. For me empathy is the key to being moral. (NB Kant said almost the exact opposite. So I'm not a Kantian, for this reason and for logical reasons.)

So in a modern western society where food is plentiful, education is universal, do we have any excuses for not behaving with empathy towards our fellow humans?

Utilitarian: problem: the whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts. It only takes one weak link for the system to fall apart. Killing Hitler to save thousands only promotes murder. If you ascribe to that theory, correct me if I am wrong, but only those who can productively contribute to society have a say in society. I may be getting them confused. (I am good at that). Regardless, the end seldom justifies the means. Though he was a menace to mankind, he was still human, and as such, has fundamental human rights. Trial, judge, jury, then executioner.

Kantians: Utopia. But we live in a large society. And a very diverse society. What one holds as good another may not. So to say, do not murder at all, is assuming that a) everyone will follow this crede b) murder is always wrong. But it isn't always wrong.

Existentialists: Well lets just say that I know very few people who can even read what you wrote and make sense of it, let alone follow it.

I agree with empathy. But I also believe in justice and punishment. I guess you could say I agree with a little of each system. But ultimately, it comes down to treating others with respect. I would say as you would want them to treat you, but how they might want to treat you may not be how you want to be treated.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Confused

Existentialists: Well lets just say that I know very few people who can even read what you wrote and make sense of it, let alone follow it.

I let Sartre answer for me.

....consciousness is not produced as a particular instance of an abstract possibility but that in rising to the centre of being, it creates and supports its essence-that is, the synthetic order of its possibilities.

So that should be absolutely clear then.

Or....and I think this is particulary revealing

The appearance does not hide the essence, it reveals it; it is the cavity of this existent; it is the manifest law which presides over the succession of its appearances....

And my personal favorite..

Anguish is precisley my consciouness of being my own future, in the mode of not-being.

Of course these are just but mere snippets of the full 628 page text Being and Nothingness where many more of these insights can be found.

[Confused]

Hi Confused

Existentialists: Well lets just say that I know very few people who can even read what you wrote and make sense of it, let alone follow it.

I let Sartre answer for me.

....consciousness is not produced as a particular instance of an abstract possibility but that in rising to the centre of being, it creates and supports its essence-that is, the synthetic order of its possibilities.

So that should be absolutely clear then.

Or....and I think this is particulary revealing

The appearance does not hide the essence, it reveals it; it is the cavity of this existent; it is the manifest law which presides over the succession of its appearances....

And my personal favorite..

Anguish is precisley my consciouness of being my own future, in the mode of not-being.

Of course these are just but mere snippets of the full 628 page text Being and Nothingness where many more of these insights can be found.

I will take your word for it

[SpikedLillac]

So basically, the most popular conclusions that everyone has is that:

1) Good and evil is determined by the envioronment one lives in.
Does this mean that if one goes against what they were taught was right and wrong in their environment then they are a bad person? Are morals determined by what we were taught in society only?

2) Whatever benefits everyone else (with the example that killing off everyone would end humanity).
If something benefits you (Like when those 2 planes hit the Twin Towers and killed off all those people. The day of or after ::I don't remember:: there was a giant parade down the streets of Bagdad because the majority of the Iraqis wanted Americans to die). If it benefits the Iraqis then everything was fine right?

3) One should have empathy towards all.
The only way I can react to this is that if I wasn't I would have empathy for everything and everyone. Nothing would matter to me at all. Number 1 and number 2 would not matter to me. If there was really no purpose in life, I wouldn't care about what was right or wrong in life. If everything was just chance, I would just empathatically wait for death.