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 .

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

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.