ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.Good and Evil

42 3897
blk2860
offline
blk2860
10,795 posts
1,850

How exactly would you define something as Good or Evil? I notice that most people just assume "Well, the side we're on is the good side." Is that really true? Here's an example: The Republic and The Separatists, in Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III. I use this example specifically because there really is no defined Good or Evil in a war. I mean, most people just assume the Republic is Good, because they're the ones you're introduced to. How would you consider them to be Good? What would their goals be? I mean, the Empire use interrogation later in the series (Or before, depending on how you consider it.), though they aren't really affiliated with the Separatists at all.

Perhaps I've used the Star Wars metaphor too much. So, for example, who's good or bad in this situation? A man steals bread to feed his family, while another man arrests the first man to provide food for his own family. Is there any black and white anywhere? Even in a fictional world, can we really consider Good and Evil to be real? Is the entire world, is there any area that's not just a large grey area? Here's another example. A man builds a dam, to protect his city from flooding, when another man destroys the dam, because it's killing the crops in his city. Is there any true good or evil? That is the question I present to you.

  • 42 Replies
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,752 posts
15,470

It may be easier to look at the requirements for a Good/Evil scenario to exist and work from there.

Someone being "evil" suggests that most or all of their motives are malicious, and someone being "good" suggests that most or all of their motives are benevolent, but anything anyone does must be ultimately selfish. Everything else is just a modifier of the ultimate motive, so what room is there for "good" or "evil"?

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,446 posts
1,045

i dont think theres completel good or evil. id say being evil means you do bad things just for the sake of doing them. you dont care about any other person and you dont necesairly gain anything from the bad things you do. i dont think such a case really exists. im sure even the worst people you can imagine during history had SOME good traits. im sure they loved a few people or had a weakness to animals, ANYTHING. so i dont think someone can be 100% evil.

as for just bad, in my opinion a bad action is an action that hurts another person with intention to hurt them or simply without care.

but i guess this definition usually means that most actions arent 100% bad or good either.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
10,171 posts
2,975

Is that really true? Here's an example: The Republic and The Separatists, in Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III. I use this example specifically because there really is no defined Good or Evil in a war. I mean, most people just assume the Republic is Good, because they're the ones you're introduced to. How would you consider them to be Good? What would their goals be? I mean, the Empire use interrogation later in the series (Or before, depending on how you consider it.), though they aren't really affiliated with the Separatists at all.


A better example would have been Jedi vs. Sith.
Jedi are equivalent to a strict religious group that have created a theocratic government, while the Sith are a more laissez-faire group.
(of course, it should be noted the actions taken by the Sith during the true trilogy do not reflect their ways)

I think this is also another fun little topic on the idea of moral relativism
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,742 posts
3,195

Someone being "evil" suggests that most or all of their motives are malicious, and someone being "good" suggests that most or all of their motives are benevolent,


Most everyone does what they think is benevolent or good. Trying to establish morality based on intentions falls flat on its face, hard. Or is denying children medical care and having them die because you thought praying for them would cure them a good thing now?

Good and evil are words we use to falsely categorize actions. They're relative to each person's beliefs and values. That said, I do think there are things that are either right or wrong, and that through rational and logical thought we can see what those are, if we start from the premise that all things deserve to be happy and to flourish, on the reasoning that this is the desire of life.
MattEmAngel
online
MattEmAngel
7,871 posts
4,080

How exactly would you define something as Good or Evil?


Why did you ask this? Why?

(That was sarcasm. Imagine me saying it with clenched fists and tears rolling down my face).

Having said that, I will, with fear in my heart, provide my input.

There are several ways to go about viewing Good and Evil.
1. Good and evil are determined by a supernatural power (i.e., the Bible, the Koran, or any other documentation given by a supreme being.
2. Good and evil are determined by man in the form of laws. Man unanimously (or at least in a majority) decides what is right and what is wrong. This would be Federal and State laws in (America's) democracy, anything decreed by a king in a monarchy, a law created and enforced (usually with violence) by a single man in a dictatorship, etc.
3. Good and evil are determined individually by man. Whatever that man (in reference to mankind; women are included) decides is right and wrong is how he lives his life. Laws created by a supreme being or another man are irrelevant. The only "line in the sand" is the one carved by you.
4. Good and evil do not exist. This is a more nihilistic view (the belief that nothing is real and life is meaningless). I'm not an expert on nihilism, so the following are assumptions. If I'm way off, feel free to correct me. The lack of good and evil involves a life that has no rules whatsoever. Actions have no consequence, emotions are empty and there is no afterlife or supreme being to answer to. I met a nihilist once who claimed that the purpose of life was to just do the best you can. Don't make any waves, I suppose. Out of the list, it's probably the most peaceful (and depressing).

Those are the only ones that come to mind. I personally believe the first on the list as a Christian, but that isn't really relevant. Please don't ask me "So why does God kill children?" That's a "Theism VS Atheism" subject. Believing the first of the four is just a statistic.

As for your Star Wars metaphor, I suppose that falls under both #1 and #2? The "Force" is, after all, a supernatural...thing, and there are clearly two sides to it, on which the Jedi and Sith base their actions and create rules, such as the age at which a person can be trained as a Jedi. That involves both supernatural and natural elements.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,409 posts
14,255

Most everyone does what they think is benevolent or good.

Seems intuitive, but I don't think it is so evident. There are lots of cases where one can argue that an action was taken despite it being regarded as evil, or not good. Example: buying cheap clothes you know come from child labour, or bad working conditions. Other example: politicians. Although I should add that likely a high number of politicians have convinced themselves of the righteousness of their action, as a sort of defense mechanism or of a consequence of living in a bubble surrounded by people telling you you're doing right.

Anyway, personally I reject an objective notion of 'good' or 'evil'. "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder", and so do good and evil.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,752 posts
15,470

4. Good and evil do not exist. This is a more nihilistic view (the belief that nothing is real and life is meaningless). I'm not an expert on nihilism, so the following are assumptions. If I'm way off, feel free to correct me. The lack of good and evil involves a life that has no rules whatsoever. Actions have no consequence, emotions are empty and there is no afterlife or supreme being to answer to. I met a nihilist once who claimed that the purpose of life was to just do the best you can. Don't make any waves, I suppose. Out of the list, it's probably the most peaceful (and depressing).


This is the nihilistic view, but it is not specific to conclusion 4. These concepts are not integral to reality, so nihilism is not required. A neutral position does not defy reason or break causality, it simply doesn't have any moral bias.

As for your Star Wars metaphor, I suppose that falls under both #1 and #2? The "Force" is, after all, a supernatural...thing, and there are clearly two sides to it, on which the Jedi and Sith base their actions and create rules, such as the age at which a person can be trained as a Jedi. That involves both supernatural and natural elements.


Technically, that would be a "natural" phenomenon, as it is supposed to be generated by a common endosymbiont.
MattEmAngel
online
MattEmAngel
7,871 posts
4,080

Technically, that would be a "natural" phenomenon, as it is supposed to be generated by a common endosymbiont.


Actually, the Force concept came from Lucas watching "21-87," an abstract film. Lucas took inspiration from a man named Kroitor, who said "Many people feel that in the contemplation of nature and in communication with other living things, they become aware of some kind of force, or something, behind this apparent mask which we see in front of us, and they call it God." When asked if this was the source of "the Force," Lucas confirms that his use of the term in Star Wars was "an echo of that phrase in 21-87." The idea behind it, however, was universal: "Similar phrases have been used extensively by many different people for the last 13,000 years to describe the 'life force,'" he says.

(This is all from the same source page you posted)

So it's a "life force" that cannot be naturally explained. That would make it supernatural until proven otherwise (and it has not yet been proven otherwise). The natural element comes from man being able to communicate with the Force through midi-chlorians.

On an unrelated note, I think the concept of "midi-chlorians" introduced in Episode I (and never mentioned again) is stupid. Am I the only one? I mean, they explain the connection, but the concept came out of nowhere as a magic bridge between the Force and reality, and everyone who watched the first trilogy was just as confused as everyone who hadn't.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,752 posts
15,470

That would make it supernatural until proven otherwise (and it has not yet been proven otherwise).


Where did you get that idea from? It's just God of the gaps set to legal rhetoric.

On an unrelated note, I think the concept of "midi-chlorians" introduced in Episode I (and never mentioned again) is stupid. Am I the only one?


No. I think it's a poor attempt at "sciencing-up" the fiction.
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,532 posts
2,155

ah, objective/subjective moral reasoning. I missed you so much.

before I begin on my speculation, I'd like to say that I'm an ethical egoist. I believe that man is ethical when following under their self-interests. that said, this means that "self-interest" can be incredibly subjective overall.

overall, there is such thing as attrocity, but good and evil are only man made terms to define how a society would agree/disagree with certain actions. for example, I may think it's evil to kill a bunch of people for the sake of saving a life, but the person trying to save that person's life may be completely justified in the end.

overall, there is no concrete definition for good or evil.

-Blade

09philj
offline
09philj
2,917 posts
3,100

What the majority defines as good is good.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,838 posts
4,395

What the majority defines as good is good.

Are you nuts!? The majority of Nazi Germany in the 1930/1940s thought it was "good" to murder millions of innocent jewish people in concentration camps. Was the majority right then? Think about it.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,752 posts
15,470

Are you nuts!? The majority of Nazi Germany in the 1930/1940s thought it was "good" to murder millions of innocent jewish people in concentration camps.


No they didn't. Only a relatively small group of military personnel even knew that was going on.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,838 posts
4,395

Only a relatively small group of military personnel even knew that was going on.

You then do you explain how they killed so many people without knowing that they were killing so many people. And the tons of anti-jewish propaganda?
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,838 posts
4,395

My point is that many societies and countries have had and still have a majority that is "evil". The majority that claims something that is evil to be good, is not necessarily right because there are many of their people believe in their evil.

Showing 1-15 of 42