Evil and Good

K

Keven

Temporal Navigator
Can Evil and Good really exist?

What I mean here is that if an incarnate of pure evil looked in the mirror would he see evil?

If you think you are fighting for what is right and good for your people, you would be "evil" in the view of your enemies. and your enenmies would be evil in your view even though to them they are on the side of good.

If you agree with what your doing and are doing it for the reaons which you think are "good" could it still be considered "evil"

the best example I can think of is Adolf Hitler, to the German people he wasn't an Evil man, he was their leader. Not to mention he was a nice guy, when a representitive wen to Germany to meet with Hitler they were treated nicely and thought he was nicer than Churchill.

In short, if you strongly agree with what someone is doing you consider it "good" even though the people on the reciving end of it think it is "evil"
 
Can Evil and Good really exist?
Click to expand...

Good post, Keven! You've hit on something very important: The concepts of Good and Evil are just that...concepts. They are subjective judgments that can only exist in the mind of a person who perceives one thing/event relative to others. Once you try to externalize it and say "so and so is evil because they did...." you have now subjected your opinion to evaluation by others, and those others can often define examples, relative to their point of view, where something is MUCH more evil than what you are calling evil. This makes your version of evil less evil than theirs, and could almost make your version of evil seem good! The concepts of Life and Death are similar.

We like straight lines with definite endpoints, because they are easy for our finite mind to understand. Black/white, male/female, good/evil, life/death, yes/no. We place all these concepts on opposite ends of a line. But what we are beginning to learn (from discoveries such as Chaos Theory and other forms of non-linear math) is that these things only APPEAR to be on opposite ends of a line. Something a little bit closer to "reality" (whatever that is) is that both of these concepts exist on a CIRCLE, and we are smack-dab in the middle of the circle, acting as the observer.

Look at the universe around us. Circles and spheres everywhere! Planets and stars are spherical. They rotate in circular motions about their axes, and they orbit each other in circular paths (an elliptical-shaped orbit is really a circle with eccentricity > 0). These are all clues to the true nature of things in our universe.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Good and Evil are based on the constraints of Culture and Law. Its is the society that the event takes place in that decided if it is contrary to the ideals of said society.

- SST
 
While I agree with most of what is said I think I have something to add. I agree that good and evil are subjective. Good is what helps us, evil is what hurts us. Everything we consider evil was considered good or necessary by someone else. Also, good and evil can not exist without each other. They are opposite sides of the same coin. All good deeds can be looked at from a negative perspective, and all evil deeds can be looked at from a positive perspective.

Good and evil are radically different from the perspective of a religious person and an atheist. When it comes to religion love, and the encouragement of others to love is the definition of good. People are even encouraged to love their enemies. The atheists would disagree with that because it puts a person at risk for no "good" reason. However, love is a creative force and hate is a destructive force. But it is true that it is sometimes necessary to destroy in order to create. The building that replaces the world trade center will be much nicer and it wouldn't have been possible without the destruction of the WTC. War is often to replace failing governments with ones that work better. Another good reason for evil is that evil helps to teach us. We learn much more when we have problems to overcome. It makes us stronger. In that regard, all evil is good.
 
To some, good and evil may be subjective. To others good and evil may be absolute. But to all, good and evil do exist.

For the subjective, good and evil could view the same act and come to different conclusions. Example: I hit you in the head with a hammer. From one perspective, that could seem evil, as I have just given you a concussion. From another perspective, it could seem good, as I hit you in the head with a hammer to prevent you from jumping off a building and killing yourself. In either case, the difference is in perspective. And the difference in perspective may limit the facts that are known about an event.

For the absolute, good and evil must not be judged according to perspective, but rather to an external absolute. For the most part, this absolute is God. The question of subjectivity is taken out of the question in this case. Example: A man is told to kill his son. This would appear to be evil if one views good and evil subjectively. However, one who judges good and evil according to God would view this as good, as he would know that the man was told by God to kill his own son (story of Abraham and Isaac...in the end the son is spared).
 
Yes, but "God" in itself is a Cultural construct, comprising of a specific religion. This religion then unfolds into a Society, and thus into Law. A God and Law of one nation is not a God or Law of another. Even two nations with the same god/religion have different viewpoints on 'good' and 'evil' acts. That is not an absolute. It is merely the highest level of definition in a particular society.

- SST
 
For the absolute, good and evil must not be judged according to perspective, but rather to an external absolute. For the most part, this absolute is God. The question of subjectivity is taken out of the question in this case.
Click to expand...

This is true IFF (If and only if) God can be objectively defined. So far, I have yet to see a comprehensive objective definition. Indeed, it would appear from the data nature (assumed to be created by God) provides us, the resounding answer seems to say there are NO absolutes. But that is not Popper Falsifiable by any stretch of the imagination.


Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Yes, I agree that in order for the God explanation to work, one must first accept the existence of said God. Also, keep in mind, that when dealing with absolutes, culture/society has no relevance. If God is an absolute, and hence good and evil are absolute, then God exists regardless of what any society or individual believes. Which is a scary thought, how many things exist or are absolute, but I am just wrong in my belief about them? Is Time Travel one of such things? Aliens? Demons? God?
 
Which is a scary thought, how many things exist or are absolute, but I am just wrong in my belief about them? Is Time Travel one of such things? Aliens? Demons? God?
Click to expand...

No secret that I believe the collective "we" have some wrong beliefs about the nature of time!

Further down on your list: There are folks who are putting forth the idea that quite a few of the mystical/religious/miraculous experiences described in "sacred" texts as being interactions with God were really interactions with aliens. The story of Moses and the Burning Bush comes to mind as one that certainly could be viewed in this light.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Personally I prefer RainmanTime's theory. It seems logical. I'm convinced that all religions are the result of events that couldn't be explained otherwise. Events like lightning or perhaps even alien encounters, even though the latter sounds less probable. I'm not a religious person myself and I do not believe in god or any higher power.
 
Ah! What timing! Today's commentary: (snip)

Proposes just the opposite. That unexplained sightings/beings could be spiritual entities.
Click to expand...

And from the article itself:

The idea that demons are behind UFO phenomena—and that they sometimes harm the humans who see them—can be, if Dr. Ross is correct, frightening and can also raise interesting questions: Who among us might be vulnerable to these kinds of attacks?
Click to expand...

My primary issue with this boils down to: How do we define a "demon"? Trying to explain a physical UFO encounter by saying "it must be demons" is kind of equivalent to explaining a magic trick by claiming "the Force is strong in that one." It doesn't really bring anything more concrete to the table, does it? In fact, another quote from that article seemed awfully shallow in the thought department:

And yet, Ross writes, UFOs must be nonphysical, because they disobey the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

My, isn't that presumptive!? The real statement needs to read "...because they disobey the laws of physics as we think we understand them! That is equivalent to saying a magician breaks the laws of physics!

But I'm just a mortal, with a limited view of things....so I could be all messed-up!

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
I don't think the article or the book (haven't read it) say that UFOs MUST be demons, but rather propose it as a possibility based on the worldview of the authors of both the article and the book.

And what is presumptuous about calling something that disobeys the laws of PHYSICS, nonphysical? Sounds more like a logical statement to me. But perhaps metaphysical or superphysical or paraphysical would have been more appropriate?

But, back to the original topic, perhaps good and evil are both subjective and absolute? Subjective, in that according to an absolute, an evil entity would view evil as good?
 
I don't think the article or the book (haven't read it) say that UFOs MUST be demons
Click to expand...

And I didn't infer that, as I knew it was a theory. But again I ask for a clear definition of what constitutes a "demon"? I see it as a word for something we simply don't understand. A placeholder, if you will, until more data comes in.

And what is presumptuous about calling something that disobeys the laws of PHYSICS, nonphysical? Sounds more like a logical statement to me.
Click to expand...

I thought I was pretty clear in my response. But let me try again. The presumptuous part is related to the entire phrase "laws of physics", but is concentrated on the "laws" part. In reality, they are theories of physics, for any of them can still be falsified. To call them "laws" is presumptuous in that one implies that physics is fully codified by these "laws", and that there is nothing else to learn. And then it gets worse when one presumes that because some observed phenomenon does not obey our codification of the "laws of physics" that it ergo must be non-physical. The (hopefully) clear alternative is that it could very well be physical, and our "laws" of physics have a gaping hole in them, right?

But perhaps metaphysical or superphysical or paraphysical would have been more appropriate?
Click to expand...

No, actually, I think my rewrite is more appropriate, because it entertains the idea that our knowledge of physical "laws" may be incomplete, which is very likely given the past history of human belief systems. Read the sentence again:

"And yet, Ross writes, UFOs must be nonphysical, because they disobey the laws of physics. "

MUST and DISOBEY are strong words. He is trying to convince you that this is a logical imperative, and nothing could be further from the scientific truth.

But, back to the original topic, perhaps good and evil are both subjective and absolute? Subjective, in that according to an absolute, an evil entity would view evil as good?
Click to expand...

Yes, that could very well fit the bill. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif (LOOK! A demon!) :D

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
There are many religions that are not based on unexplained phenomenon such as Buddhism, Confucism, and Daoism. Also, in reply to another poster, morality in most every religion is based on love and selfLESSness, regardless of the dogmas and superstitions involved. That simple principle is consistant in most every religion. Yes, there are religions that are based on selfishness and self-love. I do not consider them religions but farces. True love is selfless but a person can only love others as much as they love themselves. Life is paradoxical.
 
There are many religions that are not based on unexplained phenomenon such as Buddhism, Confucism, and Daoism.
Click to expand...

True. Maybe I was over-simplified things a bit. What I should have said is that I think many religions are based on unexplainable events.

Also, in reply to another poster, morality in most every religion is based on love and selfLESSness, regardless of the dogmas and superstitions involved.
Click to expand...

Again, true. However, sometimes religion seems to do more damage than good in the world.

Roel
 
It IS strange how both Christianity and Islam consider tolerance a virtue and yet spawn the most intolerant people. Both are supposed to strive to be loving and peaceful but they act as though they are suppose to hate those that do not conform to their beliefs.
 
Back
Top