it's obvious that there is good and evil just look at punching someone in the face for no reason or giving them a helping hand, also I wrote a really long and better response but it just disappeared so unfortunately the website hasn't been good to me in that case but fortunately it wasn't it's fault and it can't bear guilt since it is not sentient so there's no point trying to convince it of the difference between good and evil peace
Yes. Everybody with a normally functioning mind perceives a difference between right, wrong, good, and evil. Sociopaths do not. If there really is no good and evil, then sociopaths are perceiving the world more accurately than we are. While we are all perceiving something that isn't really there, sociopaths are seeing the world as it truly is. But we all consider sociopathy to be a mental illness. Their minds aren't working right precisely because they lack moral perceptions. If a correctly working mind is a mind that perceives a difference between right, wrong, good, and evil, then the perception of good and evil is an accurate perception. That means there is such a thing as good and evil. Zaradi, over there--->>is confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. The fact that people have different views about morality doesn't mean there are no objective morals anymore than the fact that people have different views about the shape of the earth means that the earth has no shape. Zaradi's argument is absurd in the extreme.
Many of us will say that there is no good or bad but, I believe were born in this world as good people. It just depends on what you think of the world. There are some that would argue with "There is no such thing as good nor Evil". There's good in all of us we just have to find it in ourselves.
point of views
I do not believe that people can be either good or evil as seen in books or movies. In the real world it is more complicated than that. No one can honestly say that they are completely good because everyone has acted poorly and on impulse. Everyone has made mistakes and therefore how can anyone fit the description of "good." Also though some believe that people can be evil, everyone has a reason. Most "evil" people are either mentally ill, had a bad childhood, or there was an event in their life that triggered their behavior. So if we use the logic than anyone can have a little good in them that is overshadowed by their worst nature that was brought about by their life or ever since they were born. With this logic, isn't this person in between despite what people might think. Also, if someone is in between for having a little good in them, then someone can't be completely good because everyone has committed wrongs in their life. The point is that these words shouldn't define anyone because they are too vague. Actions can be evil or good but people can't be one or the other.
With good being the conservation of life, and evil being the destruction of it(and things such as torture, rape, etc.) However, I think most actions are in a grey area. I think that the main factor is justifiable cause( such as stealing food so your family doesn't starve) and nobody is ever completely good or wholly evil.
4gThose who say torture is okay should be tortured. They will not hold the same opinion, guaranteed.
Torture is not just a word. Don't distance yourself from torture while you form such a vile and truly WRONG opinion. Torture is absolutely NEVER okay. It is never justified.
Those who agree with torture are obviously, TORTURERS. I say let THEM experience it, so they know what they're advocating for.
It is EVIL and never, ever okay. I'd like to see any one of these "advocates" say that they're willing to be tortured, or that they'd
If good and evil do not exist then every action is justifiable to an individual, and therefore leaves us with no moral nature. Good and evil have to exist for us to be human, and as emotional beings, this is vital to our existence. That would result in us not having this debate as we would not know the difference in the first place.
How do you know if something is morally right or wrong? How can you ground a belief that says acts such as torturing an innocent child, rape, murder, racism, and other such things are objectively immoral? By "objectively," we mean that such acts are immoral in a way that goes beyond personal opinion or feelings; they are immoral whether anyone thinks they are or not. It may surprise you to know that, without God, it is impossible to have objective moral values. Instead, unless God exists, all that is left is mere emotive opinions.
Those who do not believe in God object to such an assertion and say that a person does not need to acknowledge any kind of deity to understand moral right and wrong. And, they are right. Human beings do not need to believe in God to discern moral duties or understand that objective moral values exist. But, that has never been the argument of those who believe in God. Instead, the Christian argument is that in order to ground an objective moral law, you need to have a transcendent source of those values.
This truth is acknowledged by leading atheists. For example, the famous nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said: "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist."
Without an unchanging, absolute authority that uses an unchanging, absolute standard, which is based on the right and unchanging truth, ethics simply becomes emotive and opinion. Rape doesn't become wrong, but rather the strongest statement that can be made about it is, "I don't like rape." C. S. Lewis put is simply when he said: "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." For those without God, that unchanging straight line does not exist.
Why does a small child immediately know when they've been treated unfairly or know that it is wrong to have something stolen from them? They know because there is a universal moral law that has been intrinsically woven into them by their Creator. This fact produces what is called the moral argument for the existence of God, which can be stated in the following way:
• Laws imply a Law Giver
• There is an objective Moral Law
• Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
True object moral good cannot be defined without purpose, and purpose cannot be defined without a cause. Without God – the cause of everything – all that is left is time + matter + chance. And such a combination only produces chaos; not an absolute moral framework.
Poet Steve Turner spells out in his poem entitled Creed, which ends with these words:
"If chance be the Father of all flesh,
Disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
And when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker."
When I say animals I means cats dogs and not humans cats or dogs do not have a sence of good or bad so it is more likely that we humans created something called good and bad because of the nature of slef doubt I mean killing a man is not good or bad because animals do it all the time and we are also animals who did kill other animals
Yeah there is good and evil. Here is a example some has 50 dollars in them but they look sick and weak. If you mug them then that is clearly evil. If you do not believe that what about all the dictator's in this world um. What about all the crimes. They is clearly good such as helping a injured person get back up. There is evil and good choose every day most just choose good.
There is just Positive and Negative Selfishness. Observe:
A man steals from his son's college funds to pay for an expensive car. That is Negative Selfishness; performing an action that benefits oneself to fulfil his own wants and needs.
A man buys his son a bicycle for his birthday. That is Positive Selfishness; performing an action that benefits another to fulfil the wants and desires of the person performing the action.
There is no such thing as 'selflessness' as any action is a result of selfishness in one way or another.
Say a young man pushes a woman out of the way of an incoming car, his reasoning being that he did not want her to come to harm. This comes around to selfishness: He saw an end that was undesirable to him, and so he acted to change it so it would satisfy his desires.
Good and Evil are just simplified terms for Selfishness that happens to benefit others as well as oneself, and Selfishness that happens to benefit oneself with either harm or no benefit at all to others.
Good and evil are just two words and feelings that humans use to categorize things. Love, family, kindness - good. Murder, rape, drug abuse - evil. The extreme majority of the population would agree with those six categorizations, but in reality that's only because we've been taught that certain things are good and evil. Nothing, by itself, is either way, but only becomes so in a human's eye.
Who hasn't felt sorry for the villain, understand why he does the things he does and even agree with him? There is no good guy, no bad guy, the guy who shakes his hands and says excellent does not exist but in fiction. It's all a matter of your point of view. We are just a cluster of atoms that do things. No things are "evil" or "good", people that you think is bad just think in a different way than you do.
Good and Evil are oversimplified explanations for human behavior. I had a discussion with someone about this recently who felt that mass murderers, rapists, etc. are "Evil." I believe there are people who are deranged, or for whatever reason, take pleasure in doing devious acts. There are a number of explanations other than "they are evil" to explain this such as a personality disorder or lack of empathy, but not some malevolent force that is influencing us or something that is inherent within our character.
Consider animal behavior. Many males in a species (lions, hyenas, polar bears to name a few) will kill and sometimes eat the young of other males. Killer whales have been known to kill their prey for sport. These behaviors go beyond a necessity to survive, but rather, would seem to be unnecessarily "evil" to our human morality. But are they? Why do they do the things they do? I would argue that as a humans, we too have tendencies to behave in ways we don't completely understand. The simplest reasoning is to use unscientific terms like "Good" and "Evil" when I believe there is more to it than that. Numerous studies have shown that we are not so far evolved from our more primitive ancestors as we may think. The world around us may be more sophisticated, but our lizard brain tendencies still greatly influence our behavior.
Good and evil is all a matter of our opinion. If monkeys became sentient one day and wanted to kill all humans for the way they have been trated like stupid animals, is that evil? Humans are taking all the planet's resources for themselves, so the monkeys could have either lived as our slaves to gain those resources, or destroy us all. But are they evil? If somebody was sympathetic to their cause and helped the monkeys kill us, is that evil? Helping a species survive is considered noble and good, isn't it? And killing a tyrannical government with a monopoly on all resources has always been considered good, right? So what that person is doing - helping the monkeys kill humans - is technically considered good, then.
Good and Evil are too obscure to properly define. What some consider evil is good to others and vice versa.
There is only good and evil in a single hive mentality. That which advances the hive / society is good while that which does not is considered evil. However since there are many hives / societies and hive mentalities the same action can be good for one hive/ society and evil to another.
What you perceive, is what you believe. The 'good and evil' mindset is a construct humans use to apportion blame instead of accepting responsibility for their actions (the devil/wife/doctor/garbage man made me do it), create wars, spread hate, fear, and breed ignorance.
If we accept the fact that life just 'is,' and that sometimes situations 'just happen', and if we stop categorizing everything as either good or evil, we'll live freer lives.
Good and evil are weapons of judgment and condemnation, reward and punishment - things humans use to put themselves above each other whilst pointing the finger at someone else.
If you're in the kitchen and you can't see the bedroom, does the bedroom even exist?
Perception. It's all in one's perception of a thing.
Yes. But philochristos gets most of the points wrong.
A) "Everybody with a normally functioning mind perceives a difference between right, wrong, good, and evil. Sociopaths do not."
(Note: I like to call them psychopaths.)
Perceiving the difference between two things, right and wrong being a particular case, does not entail that one knows what one ought to do. Oughts come out of sympathy. Psychopaths lack this. So while psychopaths do not truly understand the "oughts" behind right and wrong, while sympathetic persons do, that does not mean they do not perceive right and wrong. Put differently, psychopaths do not have the feelings of sympathy which generate the "ought" or "ought not".
B) "If there really is no good and evil, then sociopaths are perceiving the world more accurately than we are."
This is simply not true. On the contrary, one piece of evidence of good and evil existing objectively would be if all beings recognized and understood the ideas emotionally. In fact this supports the case that no good or evil exist because psychopaths do not experience these so called "objective" truths. I believe the question is asking whether these ideas exist objectively. Not whether they exist subjectively. In which case, they do exist subjectively, that is, only in the minds of those subjects who have the ability to sympathize.
C) "Their minds aren't working right precisely because they lack moral perceptions."
The underlying assumption here is what it means for a mind to be working "right". Even here the meaning of the term is subjective, and understood only from the point of view of those that believe that a sympathetic mind is the "correctly working" mind while the psychopathic one "not working right". But this is not the case. Psychopathy is not exactly a "screw loose" in someone's mind that can be fastened. It is not a dent that cannot be repaired. It is a deliberate formation. The individual can survive in all ways, in most cases blend into society perfectly well, sometimes and in most times, completely unaware of the illness. But the formation of psychopathy may have proper natural reasons. It is not some "accident" and therefore things aren't working right. It may be an evolutionary trend and necessity, as subjects of the disorder have many commonalities.
All bad people believe they're doing good. All good people known when they're doing bad. If everything was switched if good was evil and evil was good which would be which? Or what I mean to say is if we all considered the bad to be good would bad still be bad or vice versa. I know its confusing but in the end result hopefully you get that we're all just human trying to make our life mean somthing when nothing ever really means anything except to ourselves.
In order to determine such an existence one must first define the contextual form the ideology is to take. If referring to good and evil as classified a verb, a word defining an action, then both are perceived by and judge to be, according to individual determinations which bear variances too numerous to be considered an accurate verdict. If presented as a noun, a word defining a person, place or thing, if closely reviewed, it becomes apparent that this determining factor tends to be based upon the actions of that noun, returning to a verb oriented definition.
I would suggest that the general ideology of "good" and "evil" are not a thing that exists but a widely used method of differentiating and expressing an individual's identity as each persons beliefs and emotions relate to another individual identity.
Therefore I do not believe either "good" or "evil" exists.