Susan's Place Transgender Resources

What if the concepts of "good and evil" and correspondingly "right and wrong" are constructs? Well, think about it: they don't exist in nature. A cheetah does not recognize good and evil, it recognizes only life and death. To go on living, it kills and it does not think about whether this is good or bad. Killing = food = life is all it knows. Why do humans differentiate? Are good and evil constructs the same as any other human thing? Made-up? Unnatural? Especially if we take religion out of it?
What purpose does good and evil serve? Surely humans would go on living regardless. Animals do.

Humans are social animals.  In order for us to survive we need to depend on other humans. That leads to justice which needs to be agreed upon by the group. Differences in what justice is, can be called good and evil.

Well yeah they're constructs. It's probably a symptom of an evolved mind, remember we are creatures trapped halfway between beasts and divinity. When you look at it from a Darwinian perspective, humans do a lot of things that are very anti-survival and yet we are the dominant species. The concepts of monogamy and loyalty, the violation of which are frowned upon are very anti survival. Yet, most of us feel compelled to embrace them at some point.

I think a lot of emotion is overstated in terms of it's origins. Our love for our babies is caused by hormones that are there to keep us from eating our young. They are born helpless and therefore the most sucessful humans were those who evolved with this system. Over time the baby eaters (just an example) died out and only the baby lovers remain. Actually eating babies isn't going to end the world or effect the cosmic balance in any way, we've just evolved to find it abhorrent. Similar concepts could probably be worked out for every human value and modified to account for higher thinking processes; monogamy could be related to the baby hormone, loyalty the product of millenia of observing how much easier individual mammoths fall if you split the herd.

Culturally, we as a species can not agree on many points of what is good and what is evil.
And even those things we can agree on as good or evil are situational.

So obviously (from where I'm sitting anyhow), good and evil are man made constructs, not factually existing forces.

evil or good for that matter are not human constructs but are infact palatable forces that exist wether or not we chose to believe in them in fact the very example nero gives can be used to illustrate this the animal eating to survive is neither good nor evil it is a fact of life. however that same animal say a dog for instance has been known to key on individuals for no apparent reason only to find out later that the person was a rapist or a murderer. if it the evil of this person was situational how is it that the animal can sense it. did the animal know that the person was about to murder the his owner (preminition) or did he in fact sense the persons evil intent. Do we not sense prior to something bad happening a feeling of forboding a sixth sense if you will. this is not a human construct. fear has been called palatable. meaning it can be sensed not only by other people but by animals.
jessica

Over 70% of human communication is body-language.
Animals, that do not use language per say, communicate even more by body-language.

The sensing of intent is thus, most probably, the subconscious recognition of micro-expressions of the face and body.
There's nothing magical or supernatural involved.

And they're not seeing "evil" in a murderer, but hostility.
Hostility isn't necessarily evil.
A dog will protect his owner from the police, even if the owner is the murderer in the situation.
Thus it's situational who the dog will sense as the negative force.

I think you can't 'just' say it either is or isn't. Simply because of faith.
A lot of people will say Good and Evil are forces greater than humanity, because they believe that. I think that's a statement wáy too bold to make, and flying in the face of rational thought, so.. I'll disagree. However, being fair, that means that my own belief, namely that it ís a construct, should also be left at that: A belief.

I think that 'good' and 'evil' as such do not exist beyond cultural morals. I do believe, however, that they are mainly based on an instinctive urge to create a beneficial environment for our species.. Which would look a lot like 'good.' Things that go against this would look 'evil.'

Is the Cheetah evil for killing prey? No; it is good for killing prey. Because killing prey, if not done overly, is beneficial to the cheetah.
From the prey's point of view, it's definitely evil.

Is this alive?

They are constructs. Good is anything that improves the chances of reaching a certain goal. Evil is anything that hurts/destroys it. Generally, good is that which benefits order and productivity in a society. Society is a good because it keeps us out of "the state of nature. . ." The whole is greater than the sum of its parts in this case.

I think they are constructs. What is evil for me may not be evil for you, therefore they have to be constructs. (Unless you believe in universal evil or good - but then what sort of arrogance would you have to believe that what you think is right or wrong actually applies equally to everyone?)

But I think there are some biological basis for a lot of our 'morality'. From a biological perspective anything which decreases a species chances of survival collectively could be seen as evil. For example, the taboo against incest. But it is not always easy to see the ramifications of our actions on the species. There will always be grey areas.

Quote from: Nero on November 20, 2009, 08:15:42 PM
What if the concepts of "good and evil" and correspondingly "right and wrong" are constructs? Well, think about it: they don't exist in nature. A cheetah does not recognize good and evil, it recognizes only life and death. To go on living, it kills and it does not think about whether this is good or bad. Killing = food = life is all it knows. Why do humans differentiate? Are good and evil constructs the same as any other human thing? Made-up? Unnatural? Especially if we take religion out of it?
What purpose does good and evil serve? Surely humans would go on living regardless. Animals do.

I have LONG taken the position that if there is no superhuman source for "good and evil" or "right and wrong" or even "human rights" then these cannot logically be anything BUT human constructs.

Frankly, the only universal truth is "might makes right" - it's only a matter of the "might" is in the hands of humans or something above humans.

The Ancient Egyptians had an interesting view on this.  I can't remember where I found this quote, but here is a definition of the Ancient Egyptian concept of 'Ma'at' (often translated as truth):

"Ethics" is an issue of human will and human permission. It is a function of the human world of duality. What is "ethical" for one group is sin for another. But Ma'at, the reality that made all groups what they are, is transcendent of ethics, just as a rock or a flower is amoral, a-ethical, without "truth or falsehood." How can a flower be "false" or "ethical." It just is. How can the universe be "ethical or moral, right or wrong"? It simply is. That is Ma'at.

It's an interesting way of thinking about things.

Isn't everything a construct?  What something is depends on what is thought of it. Good and Evil may be constructs but that does not make them unreal. I'd say inconsistant, alterable even, but definitly real. Perhaps nothing more than a classification concerning the value of something to the classifier.

Isn't everything a construct?

Quantum mechanics would suggest that everything, even our perceived reality, is a construct.

Quote from: tekla on November 26, 2009, 11:27:40 PM
Isn't everything a construct?

Quantum mechanics would suggest that everything, even our perceived reality, is a construct.

I hate to ask, as i may devalue my own argument, but wouldn't this be a paradox if quantum mechanics is a construct as well?...

Well it is, but matter and energy are not, they seem pretty real.

Let us construct Cindy's Islands. One is (forcibly)populated by evil people the other by good. What would evolve, in the short term, if the inhabitants were able to live.
Would the evil island have a range of evil in which the very evil were defined as evil; and the lesser evil as good? On the good Island would the very good look upon the lesser good as evil?
If so the definitions are purely constructs.

Cindy

Quote from: CindyJames on November 27, 2009, 02:39:40 AM
Let us construct Cindy's Islands. One is (forcibly)populated by evil people the other by good. What would evolve, in the short term, if the inhabitants were able to live.
Would the evil island have a range of evil in which the very evil were defined as evil; and the lesser evil as good? On the good Island would the very good look upon the lesser good as evil?
If so the definitions are purely constructs.

Aha, and would the inhabitants of "evil island" actually consider themselves evil?  Or would their frame of reference lead them to view the inhabitants of "good island" as evil?

Some would probably tag the islamic militant terrorists as evil (or at least the acts they carry out) and they, in turn view us in the west as evil, or at the very least morally corrupt.  They even dubbed the US as "the great Satan".  Both viewpoints have constructs of good and evil that are, predictably, rather parochial in the view of good vs evil, morality & ethics, etc..

They are constructs and may be needed for we humans. As you pointed out some animals kill for survival and it is needed to keep a balance in nature. The only animals that kill for no good reason are chimps and humans. Chimps may kill over territory. Many times humans kill over a God no one has ever seen.

I am impressed by show of intellect and proud to be a member of such a group of people. I am not sure I can add anything significant however, it seems that our brains are constructed in such way as to continuously make sense of our surroundings. Survival depends on quick assumption of a situation, as a build in surge protector brain has an ability to construct clear understanding even for otherwise unexplainable phenomenon. As it is understood, brain has evolved as a survival-feed mechanism, when conditions of evolution grew complex so did the brain developing more power to calculate scent, vision, taste in order to feed the host. With the animals becoming more aware of potential danger, the carnivorous counterparts had to evolve more and more brain power to outwit their meals on fast legs. Brain in the essence is the survival killing machine. As I form the understanding of my life I clearly see these concepts underlying every thought. As we dwell evil and good, we simply use our hunter / pray instincts to construct fuzzy understanding of otherwise non understandable flow of quantum soup. It almost feels that nature by increasing brains power created, totally as a side effect, our abilities( or perhaps disabilities) to venture into realm of ethereal, poetry, conceptual though things which have nothing to do with pure survival. We spend most of our daily time in the non-existent dream world, and are bombarded by concepts such as good and evil. ;D >:-)

Quote from: finewine on November 27, 2009, 05:44:43 AM
Aha, and would the inhabitants of "evil island" actually consider themselves evil?  Or would their frame of reference lead them to view the inhabitants of "good island" as evil?

Some would probably tag the islamic militant terrorists as evil (or at least the acts they carry out) and they, in turn view us in the west as evil, or at the very least morally corrupt.  They even dubbed the US as "the great Satan".  Both viewpoints have constructs of good and evil that are, predictably, rather parochial in the view of good vs evil, morality & ethics, etc..

I can see more flaws in my arguement. If Cindy's loyal troops, the stiletto armed sisters; AKA the SAS :laugh: forcibly inhabited the islands then Cindy and her SAS are more evil then the evil. So we need to define evil.
In finewine's post he mentions that the US is referred to as the great satan by (some) Islamic countries. There was a barely literate US President who managed to define a group of countries as an axis of evil. How can a country be evil?
Do evil people regard themselves as evil? The truely good, as in Saints (if such things exist), cannot regard themselves as truely good as it would then be a sin of pride. Would a truely evil person be good if they recognised that they were evil (Ahm not sure about that one). Certainly there are people whom any 'sensible' person would define as evil that didn't recognise evil in themselves, eg Hitler, Mengles etc. Hitler it could be argued was insane. I have never heard that Mengles was.

Many rapists don't consider their crimes as evil, yet they are, in my mind, some of the most terrible crimes a human can carry out.
Being TG or Gay or lesbian are considered horrifically evil by some people and yet I have never to my knowledge found any evil in the people on this site. OK some get banned for breaking basic rules, and some are rude but evil?
In my Australian Essential Dictionary, evil is defined as wicked or harmful. Aussies seem to be fairly basic in definitions :laugh:.

So what is good and what is evil?

Sorry, it's a windy wet evening and I'm bored so I'm also hyperactive in the head.

Cindy

Cindy

Quote from: CindyJames on November 28, 2009, 01:31:46 AM
In my Australian Essential Dictionary, evil is defined as wicked or harmful. Aussies seem to be fairly basic in definitions :laugh:.

So what is good and what is evil?

I like the definition of evil as "harmfull" that seems more true and all-inclusive. So basicly what is evil is what is harmful to what is nameing the evil. Thus should actions be taken by Group one to destroy Group two because Group two is Harmful to Group one and thus evil. Then Group one therby becomes evil because it becomes Harmful to Group Two.

This brings to mind this qoute: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye fo an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..."

I think it is a respectful sentiment, not so much in avoiding being evil. If we were all to behave this way the world would truely be a better place, you would think that if we could agree upon enough to achive the state of "civilization" we now have that perhaps we might eventualy be so peacfull.

Quote from: Robin. on November 28, 2009, 01:22:33 PM
I like the definition of evil as "harmfull" that seems more true and all-inclusive. So basicly what is evil is what is harmful to what is nameing the evil. Thus should actions be taken by Group one to destroy Group two because Group two is Harmful to Group one and thus evil. Then Group one therby becomes evil because it becomes Harmful to Group Two.

This brings to mind this qoute: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye fo an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..."

I think it is a respectful sentiment, not so much in avoiding being evil. If we were all to behave this way the world would truely be a better place, you would think that if we could agree upon enough to achive the state of "civilization" we now have that perhaps we might eventualy be so peacfull.

Basically what I said. The problem is that there is a basic human drive to outdo others. To have a perfect civilization, we would have to eliminate this drive (probably by evolution, unless you have a better way.) Then there wouldn't be much advancement, with no competition. Wouldn't benefit the human race.

Quote from: SilverFang on November 29, 2009, 03:21:32 AM
Basically what I said. The problem is that there is a basic human drive to outdo others. To have a perfect civilization, we would have to eliminate this drive (probably by evolution, unless you have a better way.) Then there wouldn't be much advancement, with no competition. Wouldn't benefit the human race.

I don't think we would have to eliminate the drive, people would just need to understand not to compete in such a way that is harmful to others. But rather to enjoy competeing in the sense that it is an act that encourages growth.

Quote from: Robin. on November 29, 2009, 10:43:33 PM
I don't think we would have to eliminate the drive, people would just need to understand not to compete in such a way that is harmful to others. But rather to enjoy competeing in the sense that it is an act that encourages growth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I will stop derailing this thread.

I found this thread very interesting reading, and at the same time, felt unarmed to make a reply, then I started thinking about the origins of the "constructs" if they are, and found myself thinking back to what the first cavemen would consider good and evil, or at what point did someone decide that an act or actions were "evil"? You can't have black without white, heat without cold... then I came across this and realized this isn't the only place the discussion is argued. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html#6lz7ZFPB3T0O (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html#6lz7ZFPB3T0O)

I'm not a (very) religious person but now I'm fascinated by the concept... and getting a headache at the same time.

Quote from: SilverFang on November 25, 2009, 03:44:05 AM
Society is a good because it keeps us out of "the state of nature. . ." The whole is greater than the sum of its parts in this case.

Are you joking me? The whole has always FAILED. Its just a projection of our nature. We are STILL aggressive, impatient, self-interested and parasitic creatures. We eat styrofoam contained murder and throw it on the road and compete with other drivers dangerously and the people in work. Technological advancements aside, how is this any different than swinging on a vine hitting other creatures away to get to the fruit, and killing others in the process? We're still almost just as blatantly violent, only we justify doing it. War, competition, capitalism and then settling down with your barbie doll wife just cause your brain told you that she was the best child factory? Its a stupid, animalistic, and counterproductive game with potentially worse consequence. Sometimes I couldn't imagine it being any other way and working, but I hope we get out of it...

Even the worst, bad human action imaginable has its perks... Everything does. I mean, yes, its REALLY looking for the silver lining, but even if we don't want to admit it, it does. Same with good things sometimes, I think. Good and bad aren't just a social construct I don't think... Cause usually one would feel guilty if they killed for financial gain (Even if it was for their tribe... Their family), or happy likewise if they became infatuated with someone else. Those are biological... And incidentally interpreted as good or bad. Don't get me wrong, I don't think killing someone is right (or about 90 percent wrong according to how I see it?). but we're not just led by socially upstanding rules, we're lead around by our own feelings a little. A sociopath doesn't feel it the same after they murder someone... And thats often a biological originated issue.

Quote from: Kara-Xen on December 27, 2009, 10:22:52 PMCause usually one would feel guilty if they killed for financial gain (Even if it was for their tribe... Their family), or happy likewise if they became infatuated with someone else.

The only reason people feel guilty after killing someone is because we've been socialized to see it as evil. Do people feel guilty when they kill animals for meat? Not really, and humans aren't too much different biologically. I'm sure that if a child somehow managed to mature without human intervention, they wouldn't hesitate to kill another human. They might not know they're human. Of course, this is all just speculation.

Quote from: Kara-Xen on December 27, 2009, 10:22:52 PM

Are you joking me? The whole has always FAILED. Its just a projection of our nature. We are STILL aggressive, impatient, self-interested and parasitic creatures. We eat styrofoam contained murder and throw it on the road and compete with other drivers dangerously and the people in work. Technological advancements aside, how is this any different than swinging on a vine hitting other creatures away to get to the fruit, and killing others in the process? We're still almost just as blatantly violent, only we justify doing it.

Alright, I'll admit overall quality of life hasn't really improved much, if at all. But society does promote the propagation of the species as a whole. At least temporarily.

Ive been thinking about this for a long time and after some serious thought I feel that Darth Vader was evil and there really wasnt much good in him. But Anakin Skywalker was good until he turned to the darkside.

Looks like a bit of thread necromancy here...

Anyway, as long as I am here: I really don't think that such as thing as good or evil exists. These are abstract concepts that serve as tools of classification, but I feel that they ought not to exist.

What I mean is, these categories are so subjective as to be useless. I could think the assassination of a prominent political figure could be the greatest thing since sliced bread other people could consider it a craven act, of the utmost evil. It is all a point of view therefore useless when used to categorise things.

Beauty, treason, good, and evil none of these things are good as categories. They are all only useful in the eye of the beholder, as relative concepts. Therefore they don't really exist as anything absolute or fixed.

Ethics derives from pragmatics.  It all comes from the question "What should I do?"  For a cheetah, the answer is kill so that you can eat.  Humans being a very social animal, pragmatics get a lot more complicated.  People typically think of what benefits themselves, but also what benefits people they care about, or just people in general.  Good and Evil are just words, but they're words that label what people should be doing.  It's "good" to benefit people, yourself, or other people.  It should also be noted that benefiting other people almost always comes back to benefit yourself.  So really there isn't much fundamental difference between an animal making a right choice to feed itself and a human making a right choice to feed his neighbor.

This is the eternal question!

I see this topic come up so often on Pagan forums.  So many people are quick to label others and acts as 'evil', but it's so completely subjective and dependent upon the culture in which one has been raised, personal ethos, religious convictions, etc.  I do believe that 'good' and 'evil' do not exist in Nature as they are, imho, concepts invented by the human mind.