-Many people see this world as Good VS Evil. To them it's either it's black or it's white, simple as that.

-When they go to Church every Sunday, their Pastors or Priests are quick to point out the wrongs of other people.
-When they go to their Mosque every Friday, their Imams are quick to encourage them to kill Infidels.
-At the end of the day it's basically Evil vs Good with both sides of the party claiming to be the good guys.

Well, News flash people, it's not that simple. What is good or evil exists only in our minds. Does killing a person makes you bad, or rendering good service to the community makes you good? What is considered good or bad?

Take for instance, you committed a hit-and-run, and the victim eventually wounds up dead. On further investigation by the police a startling revelation is uncovered; that the victim was the notorious elusive serial killer terrorizing the city! Now, can that incident be construed as An Act Of God or just plain murder? You will discover that if such an incident occurs near your area of abode, there will be no definitive answer from your neighbours. Some would argue that Murder is murder, while some would prefer the Act Of God theory. Both would be wrong.

Evil and Good doesn't exist to my best of knowledge. People should stop looking for black and white and start looking for the Grey areas. What do I mean by Grey areas? You can only begin to understand the concept of it when you open up your mind to really see what is out there, when your judgmental nature stops controlling your actions, when you stop categorizing the world as North vs south, or East vs West, when you drop your me-against-the-world mindset. What you might classify as bad news is good news to another person. Now, does that make him/her evil because he/she is rejoicing at the misfortune of another? That is the grey area.

When Germany won the World Cup at the expense of Argentina, many Argentines didn't sleep that night because of grief, while the stark contrast was witnessed in Germany. By every indication then, on the rules of Good vs evil, 98% Germany committed evil that very night by daring to celebrate while their fellow human beings were dying with grief, right? That is the grey area.

When you start to analyse it all like this, you will realise that Good and Evil don't really exist in the real world. There are no right or wrong, just the consequences of your action.

Some would argue that the above is the core ideology of atheists. The very ideology that formed Sodom and Gomorrah where men could even sleep with beasts.

There is no clear definition of evil in the real world. What you call Unnatural sex between two people of the same gender is quite natural to the perpetrators. Dolphins practise gay sex all the time, yet you don't see anybody judging them. What you may call taboo or Inbreeding is nothing but expression of love between siblings or Parents and offsprings accordingly. Infact, Chimpanzees are notorious for their incestious relationships, and Dogs too. Yet people still keep them as pets.

The point I'm trying to make is that, moral code aside, the definition of the term Evil is blurry.

Do you believe in witchcraft?

tosag: Do you believe in witchcraft?

Assuming a walked into a barrack, grab the nearest soldier by the throat and punched him. The Soldier would Probably maim you on the spot cuz by attacking the soldier you provoked him deliberately.

But was it the right thing or the wrong thing to do? Was it really? Your moral compass tells you it's the wrong thing, but your survival instinct tells you to run all the same. What does that tell you?

From a purely scientific point of view, I would think that man defines good and evil and society uses whatever definition that corresponds with the general CONSENSUS. What may be considered "good" to one person may be considered "evil" to another.

For example, some Muslims believe that it is "GOOD" and acceptable for a woman to marry as young as 9 years old, IF she has reached puberty, whereas here in the Western World, even IF a 9 year old has reached puberty (which I would assume is quite rare), she is STILL a child and NOT old enough to be married. Any man who would even CONSIDER marrying a 9 year old would be himself considered an "EVIL" pedophile.

My friend is back. wow!! What's up with you, Ray?

I will respond to your thread once you reply me.

Can we also say evil iz d absence of Good? And vice versa?since both doesnt exist and er dependent on each oda

Reyginus: My friend is back. wow!! What's up with you, Ray?

I will respond to your thread once you reply me.

Same old same old. So you are still around??

Kendzyma: Can we also say evil iz d absence of Good? And vice versa?since both doesnt exist and er dependent on each oda

Exactly. I couldn't have surmised it better myself.

.

RayMcBlue:

Same old same old. So you are still around??

Yes, still very much around. Welcome back.

You are really making an enormous claim in your op. I may not know how you came up with this conclusion(your illustration is not enough) but I am willing to understand your meaning, especially, in contrast to what I am about to say.

You defined the good as what is due to the stronger and evil as the penalty for being weak. I suspect that you are building your argument with the insufficiency of Ethical Relativism. What I noticed, a slight oversight on your part, is that you didn't attempt to question the integrity of this concept and ended up creating the argument we are dealing with now.

I think we should first clearify the 'fact' in your op, that a thing is good because it pleases the stronger and the weak must suffer evil because they are weak.

Since this happens almost every time and changes sides once the strength of the party changes, it is really evident that within these periods of swapping, the good and bad contradicts each other. An important question. If a thing is really true, will it keep changing as the people in whose life it reveals itself changes?

That brings us to what is true. If a thing is true it will always remain so though our perception of it might change. I think we should begin with, what really is good and bad in their truest form?

Do you think that a thing is true because a person thinks it is?

Reyginus: Yes, still very much around. Welcome back.

Glad to be back.

Reyginus:
You defined the good as what is due to the stronger and evil as the penalty for being weak. I suspect that you are building your argument with the insufficiency of Ethical Relativism. What I noticed, a slight oversight on your part, is that you didn't attempt to question the integrity of this concept and ended up creating the argument we are dealing with now.

I think we should first clearify the 'fact' in your op, that a thing is good because it pleases the stronger and the weak must suffer evil because they are weak.

Since this happens almost every time and changes sides once the strength of the party changes, it is really evident that within these periods of swapping, the good and bad contradicts each other. An important question. If a thing is really true, will it keep changing as the people in whose life it reveals itself changes?

The problem is that we do not have any set definition for good or evil...for instance if the definition of good was "increasing the propagation of the human race" and evil was something that did the opposite, then it would be very clear that there is a difference. Moral relativism 101.

Reyginus:
That brings us to what is true. If a thing is true it will always remain so though our perception of it might change. I think we should begin with, what really is good and bad in their truest form?

Do you think that a thing is true because a person thinks it is?

I classify all actions as being good. However, some actions appear as relative evil due to the lack of Good within the system. So evil appears relative to good due to lack of Good.

RayMcBlue:
Glad to be back.



The problem is that we do not have any set definition for good or evil...for instance if the definition of good was "increasing the propagation of the human race" and evil was something that did the opposite, then it would be very clear that there is a difference. Moral relativism 101.

But don't you think such is what a good thing really seeks?

RayMcBlue:
I classify all actions as being good. However, some actions appear as relative evil due to the lack of Good within the system. So evil appears relative to good due to lack of Good.

Or I think it be put that the intent for an action is what determines if it is good or bad.

If we are to base this on what you classify, and you classify all actions irrespective of the intent behind them, wouldn't this contradict your original stance that their is no good or evil?

Secondly, if we are to go anywhere the mistake we wouldn't want to make is judging from appearance. Some things may appear good but they are not good.

Do you think that truth is objective or subjective?

Reyginus: But don't you think such is what a good thing really seeks?

Or I think it be put that the intent for an action is what determines if it is good or bad.

Let's put it this way: It is how it benefits you, in view with the whole. If good is just what benefits you, then it is only based on your Point-Of-View, but if it is how it benefits the whole, then it has some absolutes. Take for instance, if you kill any one who disagrees with you, and have the power to not get in trouble, then what you do is good in your POV, but bad to most others. But if good means to benefit what benefits everyone,then your actions are not good because in the end, the majority will be hurt.

So in the end, the real question becomes this: Can good benefits a single person best, or benefit the group?

Reyginus:
If we are to base this on what you classify, and you classify all actions irrespective of the intent behind them, wouldn't this contradict your original stance that their is no good or evil?

Not really. The problem is, how to say good is really good and bad is really bad. In my posts I have mentioned the higher thoughts, and I have mentioned some examples. The world we are living in teaches us about good and evil. Now can we just throw away all years of this teaching. It is impossible. What I'm trying to say, is that good and evil is only of cultural and belief derivation.The whole thing is a mirror of the human nature. If all the world population say YES and I say NO, instantly I will be termed "evil."

Reyginus:
Secondly, if we are to go anywhere the mistake we wouldn't want to make is judging from appearance. Some things may appear good but they are not good.

Do you think that truth is objective or subjective?

But what uses make it "good", and what uses make it "evil"?

Good and evil is all subjective, and the majority rules on this. Majority of people think: Killing is bad. Suicide is bad. Rape is bad. People are only judged insane because they disagree with what the majority of the world says.

I remember, in the movie "Sin City", there was a kid who ate people because it "brought him closer to God". He thought it was good, others thought it was bad, and he was classified as insane. What if, in a strange way, we're all insane on some scale? If we all disagree about something, that'd be unsolvable.

RayMcBlue:

Let's put it this way: It is how it benefits you, in view with the whole. If good is just what benefits you, then it is only based on your Point-Of-View, but if it is how it benefits the whole, then it has some absolutes. Take for instance, if you kill any one who disagrees with you, and have the power to not get in trouble, then what you do is good in your POV, but bad to most others. But if good means to benefit what benefits everyone,then your actions are not good because in the end, the majority will be hurt.

So in the end, the real question becomes this: Can good benefits a single person best, or benefit the group?

Even if we succeed in answering this question we still have to go a step further. Let me explain.

When a group of people come together to plan and execute a vice, let's say they rob a shop, their unity in this place cannot be said to be good because in robbing the place they have taken what is not due to them. In this light the good cannot be best for a group.

On the other hand, if a man decides to reduce the value of the general for the promotion of his life we cannot say that good is best for him.

What I am trying to show with these two examples is that the good is neither 'best' when it benefits the single or the group but when it benefits the good person or people. I had to put that in quotation because the idea of qualifying good with best, qualifying a qualification, suggests that there is the tendency of arriving at a good good and good bad contradiction.

It is like acting to please a single person who is not good or a group that is not good. We are to act in the way of the good and not for an individual or group.

RayMcBlue:


Not really. The problem is, how to say good is really good and bad is really bad. In my posts I have mentioned the higher thoughts, and I have mentioned some examples. The world we are living in teaches us about good and evil. Now can we just throw away all years of this teaching. It is impossible. What I'm trying to say, is that good and evil is only of cultural and belief derivation.The whole thing is a mirror of the human nature. If all the world population say YES and I say NO, instantly I will be termed "evil."

Remember that we may be termed a thing that we are not. It is why we are objecting that makes it either of the two. This was why I had to begin by asking your understanding of what is the truth.

I don't see any problem in saying that good is really or that bad is really bad. If the purpose for doing a thing is for the propagation of human life, like you said, then it is good. And vice versa. Or maybe their is an angle I am yet to look at it from. It would do well if you show me.

RayMcBlue:

But what uses make it "good", and what uses make it "evil"?

Good and evil is all subjective, and the majority rules on this. Majority of people think: Killing is bad. Suicide is bad. Rape is bad. People are only judged insane because they disagree with what the majority of the world says.

I remember, in the movie "Sin City", there was a kid who ate people because it "brought him closer to God". He thought it was good, others thought it was bad, and he was classified as insane. What if, in a strange way, we're all insane on some scale? If we all disagree about something, that'd be unsolvable.

That is why I had to talk about the intent. It is your intention for doing a thing that makes it good or evil. The uses then becomes the promotion of human life and the destruction of it.

Now to the problem of Ethical Relativism. You forget, my friend, that for anything to be logical it has to follow a principle that doesn't permit contradiction. It doesn't have to be 'yes and no' but 'yes' or 'no'. If you have any problem with this you can let me know.

Subjectivism permits the making of contrary statements about a thing. It even permits a room for objectivism since it all depends on what the individual thinks is right. With a subjective morality, you can make a claim that it is what you think about what is good that is good, and be right, and I can also claim that it is not what I think of good that is good, but what is really done out of good intention, and be right too. You see the weakness of Subjectivism?

By the time we are through with Subjectivism we must have seen if good and evil exist or not.

Reyginus: Even if we succeed in answering this question we still have to go a step further. Let me explain.

When a group of people come together to plan and execute a vice, let's say they rob a shop, their unity in this place cannot be said to be good because in robbing the place they have taken what is not due to them. In this light the good cannot be best for a group.

On the other hand, if a man decides to reduce the value of the general for the promotion of his life we cannot say that good is best for him.

What I am trying to show with these two examples is that the good is neither 'best' when it benefits the single or the group but when it benefits the good person or people. I had to put that in quotation because the idea of qualifying good with best, qualifying a qualification, suggests that there is the tendency of arriving at a good good and good bad contradiction.

It is like acting to please a single person who is not good or a group that is not good. We are to act in the way of the good and not for an individual or group.

You're not seeing the bigger picture...

An opposing side is generally seen as evil, and whoever rises above their enemies becomes the good guy just because they are more powerful and their ways are more understood, like in WWII all the German soldiers would not have fought so hard and risked life and limb like that thinking they were the bad guys! Which begs another question:

"Do the Bad guys know they are the bad guys or are they only bad if they lose?"

All I'm saying is that plenty of evil or bad things are very well ordered. I think history shows that in their perverse logic,the Nazis thought they were doing good for the German people. We judge that logic as madness but in-itself it was ordered.

In a cold logical sense, we should eliminate 60% of the Earth's surplus population because there's not enough resources to go around. Obviously, it can be interpreted as an evil idea but in a world divorced from absolutes it makes perfect sense.

Reyginus:
Remember that we may be termed a thing that we are not. It is why we are objecting that makes it either of the two. This was why I had to begin by asking your understanding of what is the truth.

I don't see any problem in saying that good is really or that bad is really bad. If the purpose for doing a thing is for the propagation of human life, like you said, then it is good. And vice versa. Or maybe their is an angle I am yet to look at it from. It would do well if you show me.

Confused.

Reyginus:
That is why I had to talk about the intent. It is your
intention for doing a thing that makes it good or evil. The uses then becomes the promotion of human life and the destruction of it.

Now to the problem of Ethical Relativism. You forget, my friend, that for anything to be logical it has to follow a principle that doesn't permit contradiction. It doesn't have to be 'yes and no' but 'yes' or 'no'. If you have any problem with this you can let me know.

Subjectivism permits the making of contrary statements about a thing. It even permits a room for objectivism since it all depends on what the individual thinks is right. With a subjective morality, you can make a claim that it is what you think about what is good that is good, and be right, and I can also claim that it is not what I think of good that is good, but what is really done out of good intention, and be right too. You see the weakness of Subjectivism?

By the time we are through with Subjectivism we must have seen if good and evil exist or not.

You could define all actions as evil, in that sense Good is not actually present, all actions that exist below it are intrinsically less Good or evil. I think everyone can see why I prefer evil relative good/Good instead of the whole system being evil due to lack of Good; either way its the same thing.

I define Evil (operationally) as the wish to harm mankind either individually or collectively. If you accept this definition, not only does evil exist but it's all over the place.

Okay, but let's refine that.

1) Is merely a 'wish' evil, or does it require action?
2) What about harming one to save several?
3) Which brings us back to (1), because, while you can 'wish' to save both the individual AND the several, in reality, inaction will lead to more deaths. You must act. Now, is choosing to harm one, evil? Cops take deliberate action to harm individuals. Clearly, the definition requires more subtlety.

.

RayMcBlue:


You're not seeing the bigger picture...

An opposing side is generally seen as evil, and whoever rises above their enemies becomes the good guy just because they are more powerful and their ways are more understood, like in WWII all the German soldiers would not have fought so hard and risked life and limb like that thinking they were the bad guys! Which begs another question:

"Do the Bad guys know they are the bad guys or are they only bad if they lose?"

All I'm saying is that plenty of evil or bad things are very well ordered. I think history shows that in their perverse logic,the Nazis thought they were doing good for the German people. We judge that logic as madness but in-itself it was ordered.

In a cold logical sense, we should eliminate 60% of the Earth's surplus population because there's not enough resources to go around. Obviously, it can be interpreted as an evil idea but in a world divorced from absolutes it makes perfect sense.

I think you should speak less with the perception of the people. What we perceive may be true or not. Perception doesn't speak truthfully for a definite subject but only suggests what may be a possible occurence in that subject.

Ray, I hope you are not in any way suggesting that what benefits the stronger is good while what befalls the weak is bad? But actually the only thing wrong with this suggestion is if you don't show us effectively how. I also hope the defense you will present for them will move a step higher, not influenced by what they think is good or bad, but by how and why might is right and good.

Let's try to forget about what the Nazis thought they were doing and focus on explaining why their actions is wrong or right. To do this, we must first have sufficient evidence on why they did what they did. And then we break them into parts and see why it is the best option at that point. Just give me a nod and I will look into it.

For your last illustration to even hold water we must be sure that the premise 'there's not enough resources to go round', is true. You don't expect us to start an argument without understanding the premise. From the best of my knowledge it is untrue but you can still show me how it is true.

RayMcBlue:
Confused.

Don't be my friend. What I am still talking about is the real and truth. The concept of Geocentrism was held as truth in the past until Galileo looked into his telescope and here we are with Heliocentrism.

To now say that their 'truth' is true and our 'truth' is main, even considering the contradiction, is illogical. We cannot have two opposing concept of truth. It would only be right if we term thier's as perception rather than truth. A near thing applies when have two opposing concepts of truth about a thing. Don't pass the confusion on me now, please. Lol.

RayMcBlue:
You could define all actions as evil, in that sense Good is not actually present, all actions that exist below it are intrinsically less Good or evil. I think everyone can see why I prefer evil relative good/Good instead of the whole system being evil due to lack of Good; either way its the same thing.

I define Evil (operationally) as the wish to harm mankind either individually or collectively. If you accept this definition, not only does evil exist but it's all over the place.

Okay, but let's refine that.

1) Is merely a 'wish' evil, or does it require action?
2) What about harming one to save several?
3) Which brings us back to (1), because, while you can 'wish' to save both the individual AND the several, in reality, inaction will lead to more deaths. You must act. Now, is choosing to harm one, evil? Cops take deliberate action to harm individuals. Clearly, the definition requires more subtlety.

Nice one. I would have preferred your opinion on my analysis of the failure of Subjective Morality. But let's clarify something here.

Do you still hold that what is good or evil is dependent on what an individual thinks is good or evil?

RayMcBlue: Numerous religions believe in an evil being or force - the devil for example in the Catholic religion. As most Western cultures are based on Judea-christian ideals, the idea of good and evil is highly prevalent being as the Torah and Christian Bible both have long and detailed references to the devil.

The effect of this religious idea on mainstream consciousness is vast, look at the 'light' and 'dark' side in the Star Wars series as an example of the ability a Western person has to accept and identify with this idea of good and evil. This in built psyche leads me to believe we have an inbuilt idea to right and wrong - a measure that constantly changes due to circumstance.

Very well then but I will advise you don't lose hold of your initial argument.

Reyginus: Very well then but I will advise you don't lose hold of your initial argument.

I didn't pen that, I'm afraid. That's just my lil' brother being mischievous. I'll be replying your posts tomorrow. Bear with me.

RayMcBlue:

I didn't pen that, I'm afraid. That's just my lil' brother being mischievous. I'll be replying your posts tomorrow. Bear with me.

Lol. If he did, then I like the dude.

Reyginus: Lol. If he did, then I like the dude.

Lolz. I imagine you would. His views are similar to your's .

RayMcBlue:

Lolz. I imagine you would. He shares similar views with you.

Lol. That is a nice guy indeed. In naija slang, we say 'twale' to mean greetings. Pass him two twales for me.

Reyginus: Lol. That is a nice guy indeed. In naija slang, we say 'twale' to mean greetings. Pass him two twales for me.

Will do.
Goodnight.

accept Islam and be saved. May the light of Allah shine upon u two.

IbrahimMav: accept Islam and be saved. May the light of Allah shine upon u two.

If this behavior, that is, speaking off-point, is the trait of your salvation, I refuse to be saved.

Reyginus: If this behavior, that is, speaking off-point, is the trait of your salvation, I refuse to be saved.

it has been said:

يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ

They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse. May the light of Allah shine upon you.

IbrahimMav:
it has been said:

يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ

They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse. May the light of Allah shine upon you.

Is it too hard to understand, bros? What has this got to do with the thread?

Reyginus: Is it too hard to understand, bros? What has this got to do with the thread?

I am concern for ur welfare, that's all. Embrace Islam, the only true path and be saved. In Islam there is only good and no evil.

Reyginus:
Do you still hold that what is good or evil is dependent on what an individual thinks is good or evil?

Good and Evil are human perceptions. You will notice that definitions of what is good and what is evil will vary form culture to culture; sometimes the gap is so deep, that what one culture sees as a virtue will be deemed deadly immoral by another. You can answer the question yourself by observing the world outside human culture/society -- is it evil for a lioness to kill in order to feed her brood? When a female black widow spider kills her mate after sex, it's not evil...she just do it. It is necessary, no more, no less.

How would a human perceive the same situation if they absolutely had to kill another in order to survive, the deed would no longer appear evil to them, they would have to rationalize it so that they can go on surviving, however, as a writer, you must adhere to the mores and morals of your audience. Your audience does not care for perceptions of good and evil that do not conform to its own expectations, hence, you ought not ask whether something is either good or evil, but whether your audience will perceive it as either good or evil.

Reyginus: I think you should speak less with the perception of the people. What we perceive may be true or not. Perception doesn't speak truthfully for a definite subject but only suggests what may be a possible occurrence in that subject.

Even if they are choices, who ultimately decides what is good and what is evil? If God Himself is real, which I can't believe while I am awake, then we have the Good Book to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Otherwise we have our intuition, reason, and record.

How good are our instruments, though? Let us say that Good and Evil are ectoplasmic forces in the universe. We would be able to experience them, though not seemingly directly, through our senses (touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste). So when a man drives by a woman on the street, it is the Good ectoplasm that, like the smell of cookies, draws him to the side of the road to help her. The Evilectoplasm, on the other hand, would be the cause of/reason for a man raping that same woman.

Essentially (and I choose that word ever-so-carefully) we are programmed with a tendency one way or another: our brains have been trained, in a number of ways, for a number of reasons, to be more open to the Good ectoplasm, so we are more Good than Evil. The ectoplasm is like air: we breathe in something related to what we breathe out. People in Good ectoplasm release Good ectoplasm, but not always. People are born with bad lungs, wicked minds, and black hearts, after all.

Or

Or, if choice is involved, however shallowly, we are the ones who generate more ectoplasm. Like a bacteria, the ectoplasm somehow grew in places it seemed quite unlikely. As humans grew, their brains reproduced the ectoplasm in a multitude of ways through their actions, reproduced so quickly that we could not keep track of it. Then we wrote myths about it. We tried to find out which actions produced which ectoplasm. Now, it seems, there are more ectoplasmic forces than we can keep track of, even if we can keep track of a few.

All that I've said seems quite unlikely, yet anyone who says that Good and Evil exist in the world must mean this or they mean otherwise that they are involved in a system of signification, a fundamentally arbitrary one. By arbitrary I come to say that it barely exists at all, except the way pots of gold exist beneath rainbows.