The Instigator
SmallTacos
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Evil is a lack of good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
SmallTacos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 60665
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

SmallTacos

Pro

Hello, and welcome to my debate. I am taking the position of Pro, you of Con if you choose to accept. Please be chivalrous, do not swear, and use no logical fallacies. Godwin's law shall not be invoked.

Without further ado, let us begin. I argue that evil is a lack of good. Here is why: for years, people have associated evil with cold and blackness, emptyness, all quite entropic. It is almost as if they knew that good exists but evil does not.

For example, in the bible Jesus tells us that the darkness does not understand the light. Now, would that not fit the description of something that is lacking, or nothing at all? He compares it to darkness, a lack of light.

Again, thing about inherently good or whole things. Life can exist without death, but not vice versa. Love can exist without hate, but not vice versa. Light can exist without darkness, but not vice versa.

Essentially, bad things must be compared to good things, but not vice versa.
Aerogant

Con

Wrong. You can be both, good and evil depending on what choices you make. There's no either or in people - actions and intentions shape our character, not imaginary distinctions like "good and "evil". People can do "evil" things by misunderstanding something, while being completely good otherwise.
Debate Round No. 1
SmallTacos

Pro

Sir, I believe you are in the wrong debate. I did not define these as things as according to the individual, but as according to the whole. I agree on your current points somewhat, however, I also believe that people are degrees of evil. Kind of like a pie chart. Maybe you're 99% good. Maybe you're 1% good. It all depends.
Aerogant

Con

That can't be because the human mind is multi-faceted and evolving every second. Therefore the pie chart would not work. People either have bad intentions or good intentions. There's no "more good than evil" or "more evil than good". Anyone can change - too many just refuse to do it because they are cowardly children taking their existence for granted.
Debate Round No. 2
SmallTacos

Pro

No, the human mind is much too complex to be Black-and-White morality. As you stated, it's constantly evolving. That means that it will explore both sides. One path may be deemed beneficent, the other maleficent. And such will be explored in many directions, with contradictions coming often. Tendencies will occur, but certainly one shall make decisions in both directions. It's human nature. One has mixed intentions and actions. Always. One act may be good, the other evil.
Aerogant

Con

It's an interplay like reality and imagination. It is 50/50 because these traits of the human brain are part of the contrast system.

So evil is not a lack of good - evil is the opposite of good whether it's 1% good or 99% good.
Debate Round No. 3
SmallTacos

Pro

No, it is a lack of good because good can exist without evil, but not vice versa. Just like laws can exist without felons. No, it varies. Is a felon who murdered multiple times, raped his victims, killed officers of the law, and stole multiple times on equal footing with a grandmother working at a soup kitchen and giving cookies to her neighbors? Of course not. The laws of countries that are sane recognize this.
Aerogant

Con

If there is no "evil", then you're not "good", you're "neutral". You know, positive, negative and neutral subatomic particles?

Did he rape the officers? And did he rape their donuts? I'm just... curious.
Debate Round No. 4
SmallTacos

Pro

It is not a scale of 1 to -1. It is a scale of 1 to 0, good being 1. Zero represents nothing. I never said there was none, just that my current definition of it is a lack of good.

I suppose he did.

(Please start no new arguments for your last argument, just make closing points.)
Aerogant

Con

That's now how good and evil work. Stop putting them on scales. They are contrasts. They are useless without the other. End of story.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SmallTacos 2 years ago
SmallTacos
Fish
Posted by CorOdin 2 years ago
CorOdin
How do you define good? You've defined evil as a lack of good, but now you have to define good. Is a lack of good, truly evil? A rock has no capacity to give to the poor (assuming you think giving to the poor is good). There is an utter lack of charity within a rock. Does this make a rock evil? No, it would simply be neutral, it would be without moral capacity. A rock which sits and does nothing is not as evil as a rapist by any stretch.

Or maybe you think that good and evil can only be applied to rational human actors? In that case, is a man who sits on a couch doing nothing, as evil as a murderer? The man doing nothing is not performing good, but he is also not performing evil, therefore, evil exists as an opposing force to good, not merely as a lack of it.
Posted by SmallTacos 2 years ago
SmallTacos
Not negative good, 0 good. As in nothing. ;)
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
I wish I could have gotten in on this one.

Good versus "Negative Good" is always a fun one!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SmallTacosAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: derailment by con
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
SmallTacosAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: That derailed fast.
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Robert_Weiler
SmallTacosAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Mostly a yawner debate.
Vote Placed by alyfish126 2 years ago
alyfish126
SmallTacosAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for staying above the mockery displayed in round 4. Arguments to pro because, though bold claims were made by both sides, they were left unbacked by con.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
SmallTacosAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments and conduct by pro.