• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Good and Evil

Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
30
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I just subscribed, and seen many different points of view. So, I'm just wandering what your opinions are on what is good and evil. As in many cases, there is no true way to label someone as good or evil, because there are so many different ideas surrounding the two words. So I'm just wandering your opinions.
 
I don't really see much need in labeling people as good or evil, as most of us do things which are considered good and bad. These are societal constructs, and are mostly useful for making judgements which contribute to a stable and functional society. Getting too wrapped up in good and evil can have its downside.
 
I just subscribed, and seen many different points of view. So, I'm just wandering what your opinions are on what is good and evil. As in many cases, there is no true way to label someone as good or evil, because there are so many different ideas surrounding the two words. So I'm just wandering your opinions.


At least you ask interesting questions sometimes. :)

There are many ways of looking at good and evil. Outcomes would be one... was the outcome good or evil? Intentions is another... the two don't always go together.

Of course first you have to decide on a definition of good and evil. Some define good as the greatest benefit to the greatest number... but one could argue it was possible for horrific wrongs to be committed upon a minority of the populace in the name of that principle, so it gets slippery.

Some define evil as doing harm... again, far too shallow. Sometimes it is necessary to harm another, to prevent greater harm from being done.

One Greek philosopher (whose name escapes me, possibly Diogenes), spoke of a good man as one who does no evil to others of his own will... "but against Necessity, even the gods strive in vain."

As a Christian my views on good and evil are heavily influenced by my religious beliefs, but I must admit that my pure ideals are somewhat corrupted by the pragmatism that comes from living in a world where there are shades of grey, hard choices made of necessity, and often the lesser of two evils ends up being the best option.

As a mortal human, my instinct and intellect tell me that most evil lies in doing willful or negligent harm to the innocent, without a damn good reason why it was unavoidable at least.
 
As you said they are subjective and with much personal bias usually. I have never labeled anyone I have known or met as evil, bad yes. To me evil is pure and has no mercy. I have not met anyone like that.

Good is also pure. I have met a couple of people I would call good but not many.
 
I don't really see much need in labeling people as good or evil, as most of us do things which are considered good and bad. These are societal constructs, and are mostly useful for making judgements which contribute to a stable and functional society. Getting too wrapped up in good and evil can have its downside.

As a rule I agree with you but here we part company.I have done things I regret and things that were wrong but I never intentionally set out to hurt somebody, in my mind that is what evil is.
 
As you said they are subjective and with much personal bias usually. I have never labeled anyone I have known or met as evil, bad yes. To me evil is pure and has no mercy. I have not met anyone like that.

Good is also pure. I have met a couple of people I would call good but not many.

Hopefully you will never meet pure evil, that would be when someone tazers you and throws you in a van and then a dungeon and then tortures you until they get bored, then they kill you, it happens.
 
Hopefully you will never meet pure evil, that would be when someone tazers you and throws you in a van and then a dungeon and then tortures you until they get bored, then they kill you, it happens.


I met pure evil on several occasions when I was in LE. It is one of the reasons I am very passionate about self-defense today. I know they are out there.
 
Hopefully you will never meet pure evil, that would be when someone tazers you and throws you in a van and then a dungeon and then tortures you until they get bored, then they kill you, it happens.

But, as Wolfman24 says "They are subjective", the person may be a part of a religion or society that believe that these practices are good, and therefor isn't considered evil by his fellow practitioners. Even if he is doing this for no reason, he probably does not perceive himself as evil. So, you can't necessarily label someone as evil due to the fact that they may not perceive what they are doing as evil.
 
I just subscribed, and seen many different points of view. So, I'm just wandering what your opinions are on what is good and evil.

Those terms are usually used in a theistic context, therefore signify solicitation of religious beliefs.

On the other hand, the concept of morality is a social concept that was extensively studied and thought about in early societies, a long time before the major religions of our times declared monopoly on the concept, and associated divine purpose on moral values, either positive or negative, that are also known as good and evil.

Even with the most basic education of our times, it's evident that good and evil are just imaginary ideas and have no real meaning, other than to signify beneficial or detrimental behavior to society. The rest of the ideas associated with these terms, which are usually religious, are worthless.
 
But, as Wolfman24 says "They are subjective", the person may be a part of a religion or society that believe that these practices are good, and therefor isn't considered evil by his fellow practitioners. Even if he is doing this for no reason, he probably does not perceive himself as evil. So, you can't necessarily label someone as evil due to the fact that they may not perceive what they are doing as evil.


A villain is never a villain in his own eyes. He always has a rationalization for his evil deeds. That does not make them not-evil.

I've had the displeasure of knowing criminals who would consider tying up a family and making Papa watch while his wife and children are raped, tortured and murdered to be a fine evening's entertainment and a suitable "revenge" against society for imagined collective wrongs... these people are missing something in their soul. I feel no scruple against calling them evil: they are.
 
But, as Wolfman24 says "They are subjective", the person may be a part of a religion or society that believe that these practices are good, and therefor isn't considered evil by his fellow practitioners. Even if he is doing this for no reason, he probably does not perceive himself as evil. So, you can't necessarily label someone as evil due to the fact that they may not perceive what they are doing as evil.

Ok that is just fukin insane, If you can't tell the difference between good and evil, if you think it is subjective, stay the HELL away from me and mine.
 
I just subscribed, and seen many different points of view. So, I'm just wandering what your opinions are on what is good and evil. As in many cases, there is no true way to label someone as good or evil, because there are so many different ideas surrounding the two words. So I'm just wandering your opinions.

I work with prisoners and that has forced me to reevaluate the concepts of good and evil. When you work with child molesters, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc. every day you begin to really see another side to the human condition and I struggled with it for awhile. I read the book, "The Righteous Mind" by the psychologist Jonathon Haidt. His extensive research on moral foundations was invaluable. The six moral foundations he found that permeated just about every society have expanded my understanding of why I percieve some actions as inherently "evil" even when I lack a rational explanation.


Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions, giving them their "just desserts".
Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

His evolutionary psychological explanations for how the human psyche developed for survival within groups has led me to develop a "person within culture" perspective.

Most of what people consider good and evil is really just a matter of cultural differences, particularly across different socioeconomic classes. The street culture and institutional culture differ considerably from main stream American culture.

The one exception are anti social behaviors which display a disregard for and violation of the rights of others. Those behaviors seem to tend to originate from developmental problems, typically in childhood and are manifested as personality disturbances in adulthood.

What I believe to be true is that a person's freewill extends to the point that they are aware of how their environment and circumstances influences their thinking. In that regard, when an individual chooses to act in a manner he or she recognizes is damaging to themselves or others and makes no effort to change that process, that is evil. A lot of my job is making prisoners aware of how their thinking has been influenced by others, their past, and their beliefs and how that has led to behaviors which were damaging to themselves or others. Whether or not they choose to change their thinking for the better is entirely up to them.
 
But, as Wolfman24 says "They are subjective", the person may be a part of a religion or society that believe that these practices are good, and therefor isn't considered evil by his fellow practitioners. Even if he is doing this for no reason, he probably does not perceive himself as evil. So, you can't necessarily label someone as evil due to the fact that they may not perceive what they are doing as evil.

This would apply to a psychopath and some sociopaths. they do not understand right or wrong so being "evil or good" is not in thier mind set.

The "evil" I am talking about is way beyond Saws defintion. that person is just bad. Evil is beyond that, way beyond that.

The good people I have met would give you the shirt off thier backs without thinking. They would feed you if it meant they went hungry and would protect you at their own risk. These are some the the traits these people had.

One of them was an Iragie muslim who was going to school in the US. One of the two most amazing human beings I have ever met.
 
A villain is never a villain in his own eyes. He always has a rationalization for his evil deeds. That does not make them not-evil.

I've had the displeasure of knowing criminals who would consider tying up a family and making Papa watch while his wife and children are raped, tortured and murdered to be a fine evening's entertainment and a suitable "revenge" against society for imagined collective wrongs... these people are missing something in their soul. I feel no scruple against calling them evil: they are.

You make a valid point, but it is still subjective. When the English began to settle the colonies, they encountered the Native Americans. The Native Americans saw the English as invaders and therefor evil, the English believed the America was given to them by divine right and saw resistance as evil. Later on, many Native Americans attacked English settlements and scalped the people, sometimes even the children, the Native Americans saw it as defending their land, but the colonists saw them as acts against them and God. Many colonists reacted by attacking the Native Americans and wiping them out, even if they chose to join English society. This is a fine example of the line between good and evil being blurred as both are believing they are doing what is right.
 
You make a valid point, but it is still subjective. When the English began to settle the colonies, they encountered the Native Americans. The Native Americans saw the English as invaders and therefor evil, the English believed the America was given to them by divine right and saw resistance as evil. Later on, many Native Americans attacked English settlements and scalped the people, sometimes even the children, the Native Americans saw it as defending their land, but the colonists saw them as acts against them and God. Many colonists reacted by attacking the Native Americans and wiping them out, even if they chose to join English society. This is a fine example of the line between good and evil being blurred as both are believing they are doing what is right.

You just described most wars. Most of the time, both (or all) of the nations involved believe themselves to be either acting in the right or acting out of necessity. In truth, what they have is an irreconcilable conflict of interests. Rarely is one side the side of pure good, and the other the side of pure evil.... though there may be individuals of both sorts on both sides, and though both sides may sometimes commit atrocities and other times show mercy. Such is the duality of humanity. :shrug:
 
I work with prisoners and that has forced me to reevaluate the concepts of good and evil. When you work with child molesters, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc. every day you begin to really see another side to the human condition and I struggled with it for awhile. I read the book, "The Righteous Mind" by the psychologist Jonathon Haidt. His extensive research on moral foundations was invaluable. The six moral foundations he found that permeated just about every society have expanded my understanding of why I percieve some actions as inherently "evil" even when I lack a rational explanation.




His evolutionary psychological explanations for how the human psyche developed for survival within groups has led me to develop a "person within culture" perspective.

Most of what people consider good and evil is really just a matter of cultural differences, particularly across different socioeconomic classes. The street culture and institutional culture differ considerably from main stream American culture.

The one exception are anti social behaviors which display a disregard for and violation of the rights of others. Those behaviors seem to tend to originate from developmental problems, typically in childhood and are manifested as personality disturbances in adulthood.

What I believe to be true is that a person's freewill extends to the point that they are aware of how their environment and circumstances influences their thinking. In that regard, when an individual chooses to act in a manner he or she recognizes is damaging to themselves or others and makes no effort to change that process, that is evil. A lot of my job is making prisoners aware of how their thinking has been influenced by others, their past, and their beliefs and how that has led to behaviors which were damaging to themselves or others. Whether or not they choose to change their thinking for the better is entirely up to them.

You have thought about this alot I see, Did you ever consider the fact that some cultures are evil?
 
You have thought about this alot I see, Did you ever consider the fact that some cultures are evil?

Cultures that would meet my definition of "evil" would not be around for very long if they could even exist at all.

Even among lifelong criminals there is a "code of the streets" which dictates certain rules for survival.
 
You have thought about this alot I see, Did you ever consider the fact that some cultures are evil?

Cultures cannot be classified as evil. If we did this, many modern day religions and cultures could be considered evil. Christians murdered thousands of people in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Muslims killed thousands due to their religious fundamentalist beliefs. So you cannot specifically consider any cultures evil because almost all have some good qualities. Christians often are more forgiving and open to outsiders. Muslims usually share kinship relations with fellow Muslims and will often protect each other.
 
If you watch the video, with sound, of the Muslims sawing off Nicholas Berg's head, you will have no trouble concluding that they are truly evil.
 
If you watch the video, with sound, of the Muslims sawing off Nicholas Berg's head, you will have no trouble concluding that they are truly evil.

This is the last response I am ever making to you, because I am quite certain you are a sock puppet. I dislike that you make posts on this forum and then seemingly never return to read any of the responses to your post. I find that action very self serving and disrespectful. I'll be ignoring your posts from this day forward, as that seems to be the same treatment you seem to give mine and my fellow posters on this forum.
 
I read the book, "The Righteous Mind" by the psychologist Jonathon Haidt.

I won't comment on this specific work, but the problem with books like these is that the author conveniently forgets to mention that at least half of the cases he presents as abhorrent, dysfunctional or even evil, were considered every day acceptable behavior in societies at some time in the past.

Many of the most sadistic killers now in our jails would not even cause a commotion in Roman times. Moral centers and acceptable social behavior does change and develops in societies, but the major fault on popular psychology books is that they assume that there are some acts that are heinous by definition, therefore evil must exist as a independent entity that causes those heinous acts to happen, which is a misleading, misguided and simply false assumption.

What societies consider abhorrent is completely subjective, even if dealing with acts that have immediate death on others, even by torture. Aztecs never considered it immoral to pull out a living heart from a sacrificial victim and offer it to their gods.

We are still the same as the Aztecs, or any other civilization in recorded history. It's certain that similar customs could happen in our or future societies and they will be considered acceptable and even good or moral.
 
If you watch the video, with sound, of the Muslims sawing off Nicholas Berg's head, you will have no trouble concluding that they are truly evil.

But this was a crime committed by an extremist group of Muslims. There are extremist groups of Christianity, Judaism, etc. Each religion has its own form of extremists, one Christian group says America is going to burn in hell and suffer, etc. These people are extremist and while they have not killed anybody, that we know of, they are still extremists of their own religion. But back to my answer, you cannot condemn an entire group of people for the crimes of a few certain people.
 
I won't comment on this specific work, but the problem with books like these is that the author conveniently forgets to mention that at least half of the cases he presents as abhorrent, dysfunctional or even evil, were considered every day acceptable behavior in societies at some time in the past.

The book is actually based on psychological studies and experiments, so while I'm sure your view is relevant to some books, it isn't relevant to this one in particular and this book certainly doesn't fall within your category of "books like these".

The Righteous Mind | Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion | The Righteous Mind
 
The book is actually based on psychological studies and experiments, so while I'm sure your view is relevant to some books, it isn't relevant to this one in particular and this book certainly doesn't fall within your category of "books like these".

The Righteous Mind | Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion | The Righteous Mind

His byline alone, Why good people are divided..., delegates him to pop psychology, of Oprah level.

I'll check out his work if I get a chance. The marketing of the book may be obscuring some good ideas of his.
 
His byline alone, Why good people are divided..., delegates him to pop psychology, of Oprah level.

I'll check out his work if I get a chance. The marketing of the book may be obscuring some good ideas of his.

Talk about judging a book by its cover...

At least give his TED talk a look.
 
Back
Top Bottom