Evil or Good, what/who determines?

[newsbone]

Based on the often times heated debate over my previous thread ‘Atheism is a joke taken too far’ I have this nagging urge to understand something thus the reason for me to post this:

Without Evil Good would not be relevant and minus Good Evil will cease to be, in a way they are kind of similar but the difference is based on the divergent views. How should one determine what should be considered Good or Evil? When then should something be considered to be universally Good or Evil, can a single tradition or culture or system determine what constitutes either? Or should what is common among them be decided as the single measure of Good or Bad? Can religions which already have laid down definitions and guidelines that already predetermine what Evil or Good are, be accepted as the authorities on such matters even when they seem not to agree on the same within themselves? We are seeing very many instances where a number of characters are unacceptable in one place but pretty much a way of life in another, can there ever be a balance without oppressing one side; which are then the best tenets to determine Good or Bad in a society? Should it based on the ethics of governance, religion or individual perspective, if so why?

[ginkgo]

It is relative but Jesus says do to others what you want done to you. I stare at attractive women and like it when they stare at me. My friend does not stare at women since he does not like them staring at him.

[tc33]

Talk about a loaded question! I suppose it depends on which philosophy you subscribe to.

Food for thought:
Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook

Tom

[Aleksander Krstic]

I don't believe there's good and evil, just conscios and unconscious, or smart and ignorant.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by tc33

Talk about a loaded question! I suppose it depends on which philosophy you subscribe to.

Food for thought:
Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgements exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook

Tom

In all my threads which always had a religious kind perspective I have encountered the same indifference from some posts toward anything Christian, this then has led me to sort of try and understand what exactly evil and good are from a liberal viewpoint either personal or collective.

[Xanafax]

"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society." - Ayn Rand

I believe that morality must be based on reality. That is to say what is good is what helps me survive, what is bed inhibits my survival.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

I believe that morality must be based on reality. That is to say what is good is what helps me survive, what is bed inhibits my survival.

Don’t you believe that your reality is based on a given viewpoint and can in a way interfere with another’s incase you choose to pursue it?

[Xanafax]

Well yes there is a certain element of over lap in peoples realities.

However that sort of logic says we can't have any sort of competition.

Let's say I open a shop that sells flowers - I make really nice flower arrangements and sell them at affordable prices, I start doing really well and another local flower shop goes out of business because of my success. Is it my fault they went out of business? No. I was providing a better service than them, I wasn't forcing them out, or doing dirty tricks, I let my customers decide whom they wanted to do trade with.

[newsbone]

So you are saying that it is not a problem if in one way or the other you influence your perspective of either good or evil on another person and that is not wrong?

[Xanafax]

I don't really understand what your saying, allow me to clarify my point.

Good and Evil are not arbitrary. An individuals concept of good and evil shape and define that individual and his actions.

What makes something good, in my opinion, is that is helps to further my life without direct detriment to others. Such as it's good to eat healthily, and it's good to strive for the best, it's good to make money, and it's good to create value.

What makes something bad is that it detracts from my life. Such as giving away all my money, doing excessive volunteer work, voting for socialists etc...

[newsbone]

Okay I get your point this means that we can never get a common stand on what is evil or good as it is varies from person to person for there are those who find socialism as acceptable to them.

[Xanafax]

No.

I am not saying morality is relative.

For morality to be useful it has to be based on reality. And we all share reality at a fundamental level so all morality is the same for everyone. I believe that it is possible to crystallise a morality that can be used by the poorest person in Africa, or the wealthiest person in America or England and they would both improve their lives, it would be a personal improvement however - the African may buy his own house - whilst I may by a mansion. He may buy a car, I will buy a pool.

The concretes may be different, but the abstraction is the same.

[newsbone]

If you put it that way yes one size can fit all but I still think that to some people capitalism is immoral and such instances it becomes relative.

[Xanafax]

You are free to seek happiness, The Good, through any means you want!

You can be irrational. You can steal. You can believe that God will look after it, and you should serve his will. You can undertake and mindless escape from reality you wish, but you are not free to escape the consequences.

You might think it's immoral to shoot someone who has a gun pointed at your wife's head. Ok. Don't shoot him. You are free to act in whatever way you see as moral, but if he shoots your wife you must accept that your choice brought about that end in a situation.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

You are free to seek happiness, The Good, through any means you want!

You can be irrational. You can steal. You can believe that God will look after it, and you should serve his will. You can undertake and mindless escape from reality you wish, but you are not free to escape the consequences.

You might think it's immoral to shoot someone who has a gun pointed at your wife's head. Ok. Don't shoot him. You are free to act in whatever way you see as moral, but if he shoots your wife you must accept that your choice brought about that end in a situation.

Someone once said ‘freedom without boundaries is anarchy’ in our pursuits in life I think should not be at the detriment of other persons. Can our search for happiness be done without harm being done to another person?

[Xanafax]

Yes.

Unrestrained freedom does not equal Anarchy however.

Anarchy is the LACK of freedom, it sets up a rule of Gun. that is whoever holds the biggest gun makes the decisions. That's not freedom.

Happiness is a personal thing. My happiness, at this point in my life, is success. I want to be successful and make money. I am aware that to make money I must provide a value and a service (I refuse to cheat or scam people) when I provide a value and a service I will create wealth for myself. When I become wealthy enough I can expand my business and hire more people - which creates MORE wealth etc...

So my happiness not only benefits me but other people.

There is this idea that there is a limited supply of "happiness" or "Wealth" and that if I make £10 Million I must take that away from the "needy" but this is nonsense.

[themaster]

I've recently come to finally understand that good and evil is just judgment based in our reality.. if we don't judge others if we remain objective/open, then neither idea is "in our pie" it is just something you allow and look for positive/neutral aspects in all.. and I also think it only exists in limitation realities such as this one and I doubt it exists in higher up consciousness

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Who determines evil/good?

Me.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Me.

That is the final word: Daffy Duck is in charge.

[cylon]

It's a label. But we still have preferences. If you were sitting in a chair and all of the sudden one of your arms spontaneously burst into flame, that probably would be "bad" or "not preferred", even if at the end of the day it's just a natural force (fire) interacting with another natural force (your burning arm).

Comes down to individual preference, and when enough people agree on what is preferred, we have laws, which are always being fought by those who prefer something else.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Me.

One's meat is anothers poison

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by themaster

I've recently come to finally understand that good and evil is just judgment based in our reality.. if we don't judge others if we remain objective/open, then neither idea is "in our pie" it is just something you allow and look for positive/neutral aspects in all.. and I also think it only exists in limitation realities such as this one and I doubt it exists in higher up consciousness

Every time I point out a specific character to be evil is considered archaic and a believer in an old book in as much as that being my standard measure for what I consider to be good or bad. What then is evil to my way of thought is obviously good to another and the problem arises when we clash at some point which we are always bound to, now whose good ought to be considered as evil or vice versa and what should be the methodology involved?

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by cylon

Comes down to individual preference, and when enough people agree on what is preferred, we have laws, which are always being fought by those who prefer something else.

What would occur if you happen to be sharing a room with other people whose definition of good and bad are different? One could see no problem in a certain character which in the other hand might very wrong to another, in such a scenario what happens?

[Judge]

The human ego is the only thing that exists that defines stuff as good or bad, pleasure or pain. If you take a step back from your ego, you can actually witness that there is no good or bad, it's all a mindmade defintion to capture the ego and keep it alive.

Judge

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Judge

The human ego is the only thing that exists that defines stuff as good or bad, pleasure or pain. If you take a step back from your ego, you can actually witness that there is no good or bad, it's all a mindmade defintion to capture the ego and keep it alive.

Judge

How would you consider things like murder, theft, etc, in such a mindset?

[Judge]

Originally Posted by newsbone

How would you consider things like murder, theft, etc, in such a mindset?

All the horrors affect the ego. You can buy into egoic reactions and feel terrible about all the suffering and you get involved and cry and sense grief, or you can see it as part of the projection. Or you can do both.

People get all huffy when comments like these are made, but the same people only care about murder, rape, horror, when it directly affects their ego, the rest of the time, they care not. 300,000 people died today, but no one cares about that until it becomes directly self concerning.

Does this mean you become an emotionless zombie? No, it means you see reality for what it is.

Judge

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Judge

People get all huffy when comments like these are made, but the same people only care about murder, rape, horror, when it directly affects their ego, the rest of the time, they care not. 300,000 people died today, but no one cares about that until it becomes directly self concerning.

Does this mean you become an emotionless zombie? No, it means you see reality for what it is.

Judge

Is there any way then, which everybody can be made to see and seek reality on a pedestal of a single perspective?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Is there any way then, which everybody can be made to see and seek reality on a pedestal of a single perspective?

Why would anyone want to do anything so manipulative? That sounds like real evil, "1984"-style.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by newsbone

One's meat is anothers poison

My meat is perfect for everyone. Eat my flesh and you'll have eternal life.

(Actually, I never eat duck.)

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Yes.

Unrestrained freedom does not equal Anarchy however.

Anarchy is the LACK of freedom, it sets up a rule of Gun. that is whoever holds the biggest gun makes the decisions. That's not freedom.

Happiness is a personal thing. My happiness, at this point in my life, is success. I want to be successful and make money. I am aware that to make money I must provide a value and a service (I refuse to cheat or scam people) when I provide a value and a service I will create wealth for myself. When I become wealthy enough I can expand my business and hire more people - which creates MORE wealth etc...

So my happiness not only benefits me but other people.

There is this idea that there is a limited supply of "happiness" or "Wealth" and that if I make £10 Million I must take that away from the "needy" but this is nonsense.

Happiness is not just a personal thing. Many people do destructive things TO OTHERS in pursuit of their happiness. There are many people whose method to happiness, is rooted in the misery of others.

As the present banking crisis has shown you, you dont have to add value to get rich. Many people continue to give shabby products and services to get rich. Many people, have and do lie and cheat, to get rich. Many corperations will get rich from foriegn governments suppressing their own people down and keeping them on super crap wages. Kidnapping is one of the biggest businesses in south america. Drug-dealing is probably world biggest business. Do you think fast food companies are not aware wat their products do to others?

The truth is alot of people/corporations/governments KNOWINGLY seek their happiness at the expense of others. While I also dont buy the limited money idea alot of socialist push, the world is not the beautiful rosey place we beleive. There are many people/corporations and government who have their happiness buried in the seed of somebodies misery.

Atlas shrug is my favourite book too, I can say that book, the bible and fountainhead have changed my life, but that world is a myth. Business people do not just want the freedom to produce competitively. Given the chance, they use their money and power to squash competitors with superior products.

Originally Posted by cylon

It's a label. But we still have preferences. If you were sitting in a chair and all of the sudden one of your arms spontaneously burst into flame, that probably would be "bad" or "not preferred", even if at the end of the day it's just a natural force (fire) interacting with another natural force (your burning arm).

Comes down to individual preference, and when enough people agree on what is preferred, we have laws, which are always being fought by those who prefer something else.

If the chair was bobby trapped by a known individual, would that just be 'bad'?. Intention is wat makes the difference. There is a difference between a million people dieing by disease or dieing by 1 mans orders.
There is a major diffence between your chair combusting and someone slapping C4 under your chair. Alot of cultures and animals are no longer here, because of the purposeful destructive intentions of others, THIS IS EVIL.

Originally Posted by Judge

The human ego is the only thing that exists that defines stuff as good or bad, pleasure or pain. If you take a step back from your ego, you can actually witness that there is no good or bad, it's all a mindmade defintion to capture the ego and keep it alive.

Judge

Not true, wat about wen a pharmaceutical company releases a product, they know will affect the fertility of millions of women. Is that just ego?
Or wat about wen neighbouring soldiers mass rape all the women in your town, or mass genocide? Is this just ego intepretation.

So if a stranger slaps your mum with no provocation, is that just your ego wat if your mum slaps a stranger, would you not say anything cos its your ego that labels it as good or bad?. Are criminals just a figment of our ego?

If we humans wipe out the world to the point where only bacteria can grow, will that not be evil?

So if there is no good or bad, is there any need for law?

Originally Posted by Judge

All the horrors affect the ego. You can buy into egoic reactions and feel terrible about all the suffering and you get involved and cry and sense grief, or you can see it as part of the projection. Or you can do both.

People get all huffy when comments like these are made, but the same people only care about murder, rape, horror, when it directly affects their ego, the rest of the time, they care not. 300,000 people died today, but no one cares about that until it becomes directly self concerning.

Does this mean you become an emotionless zombie? No, it means you see reality for what it is.

Judge

Does not take away from the fact that somethings are right or wrong, good and evil. There is a major difference between 1 million people dieing peacefully in their sleep at 90 yrs of age, and the same people being murdered at 20.

Let me ask you a question.

If you were leader of a country, and half your citezens all in their 20s died in 1 day, would you say " Well, they would have all died one day, besides millions die daily anyway, its just my ego," or would you you have sleepless night until you find the cause.

Egoic reactions or not, how something happens is just as imporatant as the event. A loved one dieing is one thing. A loved one being raped and murdered is something entirely different. If you woke up tommorrow and you were the only one alive in your city, 300000 people will not matter. You will be distraught that people you know and love are no longer here.

Wen men knowingly perpertrate destruction on others (not in self-defence), whether singlely or as a nation.