Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Good and Evil Myth

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 11:32:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good and Evil are Myths. There is no such thing as Evil and no such thing as Good.
Evil is defined as "profoundly immoral and wicked".
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Good is defined as "profoundly moral and righteous".

Nothing is 100% immoral and wicked, nor is anything 100% moral and righteous. Every genocide had moral justifications, whether those justifications were generally excepted or not is irrelevant.

Can you honestly say that if one's intends to save billions, and ends up killing millions to do so, that he is evil? No! He intended to do "good", and it resulted in "evil". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In order for "good" intentions to result in "evil" deeds, those "good" intentions have to have some negative qualities, and those "evil" deeds have to have some positive qualities.

If something 90% positive and 10% negative it is generally seen as "good", but if something is 90% negative and 10% positive it is generally seen as "evil". The negative and positive aspects are weighed, in order to determine if something is "good" or "evil". In reality they are not good or evil, but rather predominantly positive or negative. Therefore a better term would be negative and positive, since true evil is 100% negative and true good is 100% positive.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 1:14:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Assumes consequentialsim. Begs the question. Thus, justify consequentialism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 2:12:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This isn't a very good argument against good and evil. You're basically saying that for something to be good, it must be 100% moral and righteous, and if something is to be evil, then it must be 100% immoral and wicked. And since no action is 100% moral and righteous or immoral and wicked, there is no good and evil.

But clearly, you do believe that there is a difference between right and wrong. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to ascribe degrees to them. I think your argument fails for three reasons:

1. Because the definitions of good and evil do not require that any action that is good must be 100% moral and righteous or that any action that is evil be 100% immoral and wicked. A person who murders their own child primarily out of their selfish desire to avoid responsibility has done something evil, even if a small part of their reason was to spare the child pain later on in life. And a person who rescues a child primarily out of compassion has done something good even if a small part of their reason was a self-interested desire to avoid guilt later on.

2. Because good and evil are abstract ideals, and actions are judged in light of them. The abstract ideals may exist and entail 100% wickedness or righteousness even if no actions happen to live up to those standards. The fact that you assign degrees of wickedness and righteousness shows that you agree these standard exist. An action is 90% good, for example, if it goes 90% of the way towards being perfectly consistent with the ideal standard of goodness.

3. Because it just so happens that some actions are 100% moral and others are 100% immoral. If you have a moral obligation to do something, and you do it, then your action is 100% moral. You've done your duty. If you have a moral obligation to refrain from doing something, but you do it anyway, then your action is 100% evil. You have violated your duty.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:37:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 11:32:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Good and Evil are Myths. There is no such thing as Evil and no such thing as Good.
Evil is defined as "profoundly immoral and wicked".
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Good is defined as "profoundly moral and righteous".

Nothing is 100% immoral and wicked, nor is anything 100% moral and righteous. Every genocide had moral justifications, whether those justifications were generally excepted or not is irrelevant.

Can you honestly say that if one's intends to save billions, and ends up killing millions to do so, that he is evil? No! He intended to do "good", and it resulted in "evil". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In order for "good" intentions to result in "evil" deeds, those "good" intentions have to have some negative qualities, and those "evil" deeds have to have some positive qualities.

If something 90% positive and 10% negative it is generally seen as "good", but if something is 90% negative and 10% positive it is generally seen as "evil". The negative and positive aspects are weighed, in order to determine if something is "good" or "evil". In reality they are not good or evil, but rather predominantly positive or negative. Therefore a better term would be negative and positive, since true evil is 100% negative and true good is 100% positive.

Subjectively you are correct.

We who have come into relationship with the Objective Truth (God) know otherwise; that He and He alone is Good.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 12:02:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 1:14:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Assumes consequentialsim.
No I didn't. I said that their intentions must also be weighed.
Begs the question.

No begs the question is when someone "impels the question," and than follows that phrase with the question raised.

Thus, justify consequentialism.

Nice Strawman
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 12:38:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 2:12:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
This isn't a very good argument against good and evil. You're basically saying that for something to be good, it must be 100% moral and righteous, and if something is to be evil, then it must be 100% immoral and wicked. And since no action is 100% moral and righteous or immoral and wicked, there is no good and evil.


OK answer me this; is it possible to be both Good and Evil? Nothing is 100% negative, nor is anything 100% positive. If someone was 60% negative and 40% positive, would they be evil? At what point is one considered evil?

But clearly, you do believe that there is a difference between right and wrong. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to ascribe degrees to them. I think your argument fails for three reasons:

Negative and Positive not the same as right and wrong. Nor is right and wrong the same as good and evil. For something to be evil it must be profoundly wrong.
Negative and Positive deals with the individual factors of the situation. When making a pros and cons list, you weigh the negative and positive aspects.

(adj) minus, negative (involving disadvantage or harm) "minus (or negative) factors"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) plus, positive (involving advantage or good) "a plus (or positive) factor"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Note: the "good" used in the above definition is defined as "a benefit", and is not used in the same context as good and evil.

(n) good (benefit) "for your own good"; "what's the good of worrying?"
(adj) good, just, upright (of moral excellence) "a genuinely good person"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
1. Because the definitions of good and evil do not require that any action that is good must be 100% moral and righteous or that any action that is evil be 100% immoral and wicked. A person who murders their own child primarily out of their selfish desire to avoid responsibility has done something evil, even if a small part of their reason was to spare the child pain later on in life. And a person who rescues a child primarily out of compassion has done something good even if a small part of their reason was a self-interested desire to avoid guilt later on.

You are focusing on only a few selected aspects of the scenario, so your definitions are therefore subjective. Since this is a make believe example and not a real world example, I will not touch the subject with speculation. Such arguments are pointless when discussing whether or not evil exists in the real world.
2. Because good and evil are abstract ideals, and actions are judged in light of them.
What is evil to one person may be good to another. How can this be if evil truly exists? If good and evil is subjective, than it only exists in the mind, and can not be observed in the physical world. If that is the case, than acts are not evil, they are simply perceived as evil due to personal bias.
The abstract ideals may exist and entail 100% wickedness or righteousness even if no actions happen to live up to those standards. The fact that you assign degrees of wickedness and righteousness shows that you agree these standard exist.
Not of good and evil, but of negative and positive. There is a difference.
An action is 90% good, for example, if it goes 90% of the way towards being perfectly consistent with the ideal standard of goodness.

no if something is 90% positive, it is 90% beneficial and 10% harmful. That 10% of harmfulness prevents it from being good, or morally excellent.

3. Because it just so happens that some actions are 100% moral and others are 100% immoral. If you have a moral obligation to do something, and you do it, then your action is 100% moral. You've done your duty. If you have a moral obligation to refrain from doing something, but you do it anyway, then your action is 100% evil. You have violated your duty.

Again, you are card stacking
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 1:23:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 11:32:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Good and Evil are Myths. There is no such thing as Evil and no such thing as Good.
Evil is defined as "profoundly immoral and wicked".
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Good is defined as "profoundly moral and righteous".

Nothing is 100% immoral and wicked, nor is anything 100% moral and righteous. Every genocide had moral justifications, whether those justifications were generally excepted or not is irrelevant.

Can you honestly say that if one's intends to save billions, and ends up killing millions to do so, that he is evil? No! He intended to do "good", and it resulted in "evil". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In order for "good" intentions to result in "evil" deeds, those "good" intentions have to have some negative qualities, and those "evil" deeds have to have some positive qualities.

If something 90% positive and 10% negative it is generally seen as "good", but if something is 90% negative and 10% positive it is generally seen as "evil". The negative and positive aspects are weighed, in order to determine if something is "good" or "evil". In reality they are not good or evil, but rather predominantly positive or negative. Therefore a better term would be negative and positive, since true evil is 100% negative and true good is 100% positive.

If there is no good or evil then there is nothing wrong with me shooting you for no apparent reason.

Christians would say that that act would be an evil act, because they recognize an objective morality in God. Without God as the lawgiver, you're left with nothing more than subjective opinion. Sure, you can claim that it's wrong for me to shoot you, but by what standard?? My opinion is different than yours. I see nothing wrong with shooting you. What makes your opinion right and mine wrong??

You'll probably say that I'm causing harm to you and that makes it wrong, but it doesn't. Again, you have to appeal to a subjective opinion that it's wrong to harm someone, but I don't see it as wrong. So again, it's your opinion against mine, and neither side has an objective source to show that their opinion is right. What will you appeal to next?? Majority, rationality, etc.?? No matter what you appeal to, nothing gives your opinion ownership of what is right, or good.

Without God as the moral lawgiver, and an objective source of morality, good and evil/right and wrong/positive and negative, don't exist from a moral perspective. Actions have no moral value, either way, they are merely the subjective preference of the actor. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what words you use to describe those actions.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 2:05:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 11:32:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Good and Evil are Myths. There is no such thing as Evil and no such thing as Good.
Evil is defined as "profoundly immoral and wicked".
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Good is defined as "profoundly moral and righteous".

Nothing is 100% immoral and wicked, nor is anything 100% moral and righteous. Every genocide had moral justifications, whether those justifications were generally excepted or not is irrelevant.

Only if you equate "profoundly" with "absolutely."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 2:35:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 12:38:36 PM, DanT wrote:
OK answer me this; is it possible to be both Good and Evil?

Yes.

Nothing is 100% negative, nor is anything 100% positive. If someone was 60% negative and 40% positive, would they be evil? At what point is one considered evil?

What do you mean by "negative" and "positive"? You appear to be using them as synonyms for "evil" and "good." So a person who was 60% negative and 40% positive would be 60% evil and 40% good.

But nevermind whether people can be "good" or "evil." Your original question is whether good and evil themselves can exist. People are only good or evil in the degree to which their motives and actions are good or evil. Any particular actions can be 100% good or 100% evil, even if the person isn't 100% good or 100% evil.

Negative and Positive deals with the individual factors of the situation. When making a pros and cons list, you weigh the negative and positive aspects.

But what makes anything negative or positive? How do you know what to put in each category? For example, let's suppose you're trying to decide if you should tell your best friend that his girlfriend cheated on him, and his girlfriend just confessed it to you, promised it would never happen again, and begged you not to tell him. You consider these facts:

1. Tell him would be the honest thing to do. (But is honesty a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing?)
2. Telling him would probably hurt him, possibly unnecessarily. (But is there anything 'evil' about hurting somebody intentionally, or would that be a 'good' thing?)
3. Whatever I do, I must be loyal to my friend. (But is loyalty a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing?)

Etc., etc.

You cannot weigh the pros and cons unless you already believe there's a difference between right, wrong, good, and evil. Otherwise, you won't know whether to put the facts in the 'pro' side or the 'con' side.

(adj) minus, negative (involving disadvantage or harm) "minus (or negative) factors"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

But what does disadvantage or harm have to do with right and wrong?

(adj) plus, positive (involving advantage or good) "a plus (or positive) factor"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Suppose there were a situation in which you could put 100% positive on one side and 0% negative on the other side. Would that automatically mean you'd have a good? Why not evil instead? Clearly, you think positives enhance goodness and negatives enhance evil. That means you think positives ARE good and negatives ARE evil. So you clearly believe in Good and Evil.

Note: the "good" used in the above definition is defined as "a benefit", and is not used in the same context as good and evil.

But unless you can say that a benefit is a good thing or a disadvantage is a bad thing, your positive/negative analysis is irrelevant to the question of whether there is good and evil, and it serves no purpose in this conversation.

1. Because the definitions of good and evil do not require that any action that is good must be 100% moral and righteous or that any action that is evil be 100% immoral and wicked. A person who murders their own child primarily out of their selfish desire to avoid responsibility has done something evil, even if a small part of their reason was to spare the child pain later on in life. And a person who rescues a child primarily out of compassion has done something good even if a small part of their reason was a self-interested desire to avoid guilt later on.

You are focusing on only a few selected aspects of the scenario, so your definitions are therefore subjective. Since this is a make believe example and not a real world example, I will not touch the subject with speculation. Such arguments are pointless when discussing whether or not evil exists in the real world.

Are you arguing that nobody ever murders their own child out of selfish desires, or are you arguing that if they did, it wouldn't be evil? And are you arguing that nobody ever rescues a child out of compassion, or are you arguing that if they did, it wouldn't be good?

2. Because good and evil are abstract ideals, and actions are judged in light of them.
What is evil to one person may be good to another. How can this be if evil truly exists? If good and evil is subjective, than it only exists in the mind, and can not be observed in the physical world. If that is the case, than acts are not evil, they are simply perceived as evil due to personal bias.
The abstract ideals may exist and entail 100% wickedness or righteousness even if no actions happen to live up to those standards. The fact that you assign degrees of wickedness and righteousness shows that you agree these standard exist.
Not of good and evil, but of negative and positive. There is a difference.
An action is 90% good, for example, if it goes 90% of the way towards being perfectly consistent with the ideal standard of goodness.

no if something is 90% positive, it is 90% beneficial and 10% harmful. That 10% of harmfulness prevents it from being good, or morally excellent.

How do you get from 100% beneficial to "good"? Unless beneficence and positivity contribute to goodness, 100% of it cannot amount to a good. But if 100% of it amounts to good, then 50% of it amounts to 50% good.

3. Because it just so happens that some actions are 100% moral and others are 100% immoral. If you have a moral obligation to do something, and you do it, then your action is 100% moral. You've done your duty. If you have a moral obligation to refrain from doing something, but you do it anyway, then your action is 100% evil. You have violated your duty.

Again, you are card stacking

Objection. Unresponsive.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 10:13:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 2:05:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/1/2012 11:32:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Good and Evil are Myths. There is no such thing as Evil and no such thing as Good.
Evil is defined as "profoundly immoral and wicked".
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Good is defined as "profoundly moral and righteous".

Nothing is 100% immoral and wicked, nor is anything 100% moral and righteous. Every genocide had moral justifications, whether those justifications were generally excepted or not is irrelevant.

Only if you equate "profoundly" with "absolutely."

(adj) profound (of the greatest intensity; complete) "a profound silence"; "a state of profound shock"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 10:44:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 2:35:21 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2012 12:38:36 PM, DanT wrote:
OK answer me this; is it possible to be both Good and Evil?

Yes.

I'm not asking for a yes or no answer. Justify your "yes" with an explanation. This is not grade school, I'm not going to be satisfied with an unjustified answer.
Nothing is 100% negative, nor is anything 100% positive. If someone was 60% negative and 40% positive, would they be evil? At what point is one considered evil?

What do you mean by "negative" and "positive"?
Already gave definitions.
You appear to be using them as synonyms for "evil" and "good."
For the millionth time; no I am not.
So a person who was 60% negative and 40% positive would be 60% evil and 40% good.

No. Positive means beneficial, and Negative means harmful. In order for something to be evil it must be completely harmful, and in order for something to be good it must be completely beneficial.
Nothing is completely harmful nor completely beneficial.
But nevermind whether people can be "good" or "evil." Your original question is whether good and evil themselves can exist.
There was no question in the OP. All statements.
People are only good or evil in the degree to which their motives and actions are good or evil.
So since actions cannot be good or evil, neither can people. Thanx for proving my point.
Any particular actions can be 100% good or 100% evil, even if the person isn't 100% good or 100% evil.

No. All actions have both positive and negative aspects to them. By ignoring the negative aspects we may deem it good, or by ignoring the positive we can deem it evil; but those are simply subjective labels created by our own bias.
Negative and Positive deals with the individual factors of the situation. When making a pros and cons list, you weigh the negative and positive aspects.

But what makes anything negative or positive?
already answered this. I'm not going to reiterate. I can't make it any more clearer; you are just ignoring what I've already said.
How do you know what to put in each category? For example, let's suppose you're trying to decide if you should tell your best friend that his girlfriend cheated on him, and his girlfriend just confessed it to you, promised it would never happen again, and begged you not to tell him. You consider these facts:

1. Tell him would be the honest thing to do. (But is honesty a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing?)
2. Telling him would probably hurt him, possibly unnecessarily. (But is there anything 'evil' about hurting somebody intentionally, or would that be a 'good' thing?)
3. Whatever I do, I must be loyal to my friend. (But is loyalty a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing?)

Etc., etc.

Again negative is harmful and positive is beneficial. So you make a pro and con list to determine if it would be more beneficial or more harmful to tell him.
Telling him is not good, and it's not evil; this example therefore supports my point.
You cannot weigh the pros and cons unless you already believe there's a difference between right, wrong, good, and evil.
No, those are subjective terms. It's not a subjective decision. It's an objective decision. You weigh the benefits vs the harm it would cause.
Otherwise, you won't know whether to put the facts in the 'pro' side or the 'con' side.

Again, the moral labels of good and evil are determined by person bias. The terms of negative and positive are determined by objective observations.
(adj) minus, negative (involving disadvantage or harm) "minus (or negative) factors"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

But what does disadvantage or harm have to do with right and wrong?

That's my point. Right and Wrong deals with morality. Negative and positive does not. Something that is 60% negative may be "right" if one is willing to ignore all the negative aspects to achieve one of the benefits. Something that is 60% positive may be considered wrong if you cannot ignore the harmful aspects. In order for something to be good, it must be 100% beneficial, and for something to be evil it must be 100% harmful. Something that is Good is never wrong, and something that is evil is never right. There is no such thing as Good and Evil, but our person bias creates these concepts. If we ignore all of the harmful aspects we deem it good, if we ignore all the benefits we deem it evil. If we recognize the harmful aspects but deem them tolerable, than we deem it right, and if we deem the harmful aspects intolerable, than we deem it wrong.

Suppose there were a situation in which you could put 100% positive on one side and 0% negative on the other side. Would that automatically mean you'd have a good? Why not evil instead? Clearly, you think positives enhance goodness and negatives enhance evil. That means you think positives ARE good and negatives ARE evil. So you clearly believe in Good and Evil.


No I don't believe good and evil exists. If it's 100% beneficial, than it can't be evil. If it's 10% harmful than it can't be good. To think otherwise is just plain retarded. That does not mean that positive = good and negative = evil.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 1:40:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 10:44:54 PM, DanT wrote:
If it's 100% beneficial, than it can't be evil.

Why not?

If it's 10% harmful than it can't be good.

Why not?

To think otherwise is just plain retarded.

Why?

That does not mean that positive = good and negative = evil.

But you said, "true evil is 100% negative and true good is 100% positive" and " if something is 90% positive, it is 90% beneficial and 10% harmful. That 10% of harmfulness prevents it from being good, or morally excellent." It sounds to me that you're saying if something is 100% positive, then it is good and if it is 100% negative, then it is evil. So you are equating the positive/beneficial with the good and the negative/harmful with evil. But why make this equation? If there really is no good and evil, then it's arbitrary to equate true evil with 100% negative and true good with 100% positive. Why not, instead, equate 100% negative with good and 100% positive with evil? It's very clear that you believe in good and evil. That's why you think it's "retarded" to say that 100% beneficial is evil and 100% harmful is good. It's retarded because it's obviously not true, and it's obviously not true because harm is evil and beneficence is good.

OK answer me this; is it possible to be both Good and Evil?

Yes.

I'm not asking for a yes or no answer. Justify your "yes" with an explanation.

If a person has both good and evil intentions and actions, then they are both good and evil. It is possible to have both good and evil intentions and actions. Therefore, it is possible to be both good and evil.

This is not grade school, I'm not going to be satisfied with an unjustified answer.

What is the deal with the snarkiness on this web page? You're the third person to get an attitude with me in the last couple of days. Have I not been polite? Can you not have a civil debate with somebody who disagree with you or occasionally misunderstands you without having to say things like, "This is not grade school"? I like to debate. I do it primarily because I enjoy it. But when people act like this, it sucks the fun right out of it. What could possibly be the point? What purpose does it serve? It just creates unpleasantness, which defeats the purpose of any of us being here. Please stop. Just make arguments. You don't have to sprinkle them with sarcasm or condescension to make them effective.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 4:55:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 1:40:41 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/2/2012 10:44:54 PM, DanT wrote:
If it's 100% beneficial, than it can't be evil.

Why not?

Because its not harmful
If it's 100% harmful than it can't be good.

Why not?

Because its not Beneficial
To think otherwise is just plain retarded.

Why?

Something that does no harm cannot be evil, and something that has no benefit can be good.
That does not mean that positive = good and negative = evil.

But you said, "true evil is 100% negative and true good is 100% positive" and " if something is 90% positive, it is 90% beneficial and 10% harmful. That 10% of harmfulness prevents it from being good, or morally excellent." It sounds to me that you're saying if something is 100% positive, then it is good and if it is 100% negative, then it is evil. So you are equating the positive/beneficial with the good and the negative/harmful with evil.
No because its not the same thing. Just because an organ is made up of cells does not mean a cell is an organ. The definition of good and evil says it must be completely beneficial to be good and completely harmful to be evil.

But why make this equation? If there really is no good and evil, then it's arbitrary to equate true evil with 100% negative and true good with 100% positive. Why not, instead, equate 100% negative with good and 100% positive with evil?
Because if something is good it is 100% beneficial. nothing is 100% beneficial so good does not exist.
It's very clear that you believe in good and evil. That's why you think it's "retarded" to say that 100% beneficial is evil and 100% harmful is good. It's retarded because it's obviously not true, and it's obviously not true because harm is evil and beneficence is good.

Yea if something is 100% harmful than its evil, and if something is 100% beneficial than its good. Nothing is harmless and everything has some form of benefit. Nothing is purely negative or purely positive, so good and evil does not exist.
OK answer me this; is it possible to be both Good and Evil?

Yes.

I'm not asking for a yes or no answer. Justify your "yes" with an explanation.

If a person has both good and evil intentions and actions, then they are both good and evil. It is possible to have both good and evil intentions and actions. Therefore, it is possible to be both good and evil.

No it's not. By definition evil is completely harmful and good is completely beneficial. By definition it's impossible to be both good and evil. It would be like if a pacifist who advocates global conquest. 2 extremes that cannot co-exist.
This is not grade school, I'm not going to be satisfied with an unjustified answer.

What is the deal with the snarkiness on this web page? You're the third person to get an attitude with me in the last couple of days.
Because this back and forth has just been reiteration. You are not bringing any new arguments to the table, and you are not justifying your assertions.
Have I not been polite?
Not really. You keep asserting things without justification. That's rude.
Can you not have a civil debate with somebody who disagree with you or occasionally misunderstands you without having to say things like, "This is not grade school"? I like to debate.
One word replies is not a debate, and in a debate claims must be supported.
I do it primarily because I enjoy it. But when people act like this, it sucks the fun right out of it. What could possibly be the point? What purpose does it serve? It just creates unpleasantness, which defeats the purpose of any of us being here. Please stop. Just make arguments. You don't have to sprinkle them with sarcasm or condescension to make them effective.

If I'm being condescending its because I'm frustrated by the immature response.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 9:36:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 11:32:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Good and Evil are Myths. There is no such thing as Evil and no such thing as Good.
Evil is defined as "profoundly immoral and wicked".
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Good is defined as "profoundly moral and righteous".

Nothing is 100% immoral and wicked, nor is anything 100% moral and righteous. Every genocide had moral justifications, whether those justifications were generally excepted or not is irrelevant.

Can you honestly say that if one's intends to save billions, and ends up killing millions to do so, that he is evil? No! He intended to do "good", and it resulted in "evil". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In order for "good" intentions to result in "evil" deeds, those "good" intentions have to have some negative qualities, and those "evil" deeds have to have some positive qualities.

If something 90% positive and 10% negative it is generally seen as "good", but if something is 90% negative and 10% positive it is generally seen as "evil". The negative and positive aspects are weighed, in order to determine if something is "good" or "evil". In reality they are not good or evil, but rather predominantly positive or negative. Therefore a better term would be negative and positive, since true evil is 100% negative and true good is 100% positive.

The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is wrongly believing we may judge, being our own gods..

The worst evil imaginable is heaven on earth, a paradise in our own name and by our own hands..

Which would you prefer:

Some teenage hooligans breaking into your house, drinking your booze, spraying graffiti on your walls and then scarpering when you arrive..

Or..

A family moving in, forging the necessary documents and calling the police when you arrive?

The former right?

This is God's creation, not ours.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 7:32:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 10:13:19 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/2/2012 2:05:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/1/2012 11:32:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Good and Evil are Myths. There is no such thing as Evil and no such thing as Good.
Evil is defined as "profoundly immoral and wicked".
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Good is defined as "profoundly moral and righteous".

Nothing is 100% immoral and wicked, nor is anything 100% moral and righteous. Every genocide had moral justifications, whether those justifications were generally excepted or not is irrelevant.

Only if you equate "profoundly" with "absolutely."

(adj) profound (of the greatest intensity; complete) "a profound silence"; "a state of profound shock"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

I'm not denying that profond can mean absolutely or completely. My issue is whether it must mean absolutely or completely (or simply that it does mean that in this context). Consider, for example, the alternate "of the greatest intensity." The use of the superlative makes it a relative scale, rather than an absolute one. Also consider other uses of the word which could be applicable, such as it being a synonym for "fundamental." In this case good and evil are that which is fundamentally, or innately, moral or immoral.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 10:06:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 9:36:32 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/1/2012 11:32:52 AM, DanT wrote:
Good and Evil are Myths. There is no such thing as Evil and no such thing as Good.
Evil is defined as "profoundly immoral and wicked".
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Good is defined as "profoundly moral and righteous".

Nothing is 100% immoral and wicked, nor is anything 100% moral and righteous. Every genocide had moral justifications, whether those justifications were generally excepted or not is irrelevant.

Can you honestly say that if one's intends to save billions, and ends up killing millions to do so, that he is evil? No! He intended to do "good", and it resulted in "evil". The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In order for "good" intentions to result in "evil" deeds, those "good" intentions have to have some negative qualities, and those "evil" deeds have to have some positive qualities.

If something 90% positive and 10% negative it is generally seen as "good", but if something is 90% negative and 10% positive it is generally seen as "evil". The negative and positive aspects are weighed, in order to determine if something is "good" or "evil". In reality they are not good or evil, but rather predominantly positive or negative. Therefore a better term would be negative and positive, since true evil is 100% negative and true good is 100% positive.

The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is wrongly believing we may judge, being our own gods..

The worst evil imaginable is heaven on earth, a paradise in our own name and by our own hands..

Which would you prefer:

Some teenage hooligans breaking into your house, drinking your booze, spraying graffiti on your walls and then scarpering when you arrive..

Or..

A family moving in, forging the necessary documents and calling the police when you arrive?

The former right?

This is God's creation, not ours.

Deserves a bump..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)