We can take this from any perspective you want, a religious one, or an atheistic one. But one thing is for sure, that among other things, there are instincts we are born with. We are born with things like music, and to many's surprise, a system of deity. Look at the records. Never has an explorer found an atheistic tribe, they all have there gods. Same with music, and also morals. It seams to be a universal constant that is is wrong to kill without a (relatively justifiable) reason. It is also wrong to steal. Extremely basic morals are present in any society.
Things such as love, friendship, caring, kindness, and much more are good things and they make the world better. Killing, rape, murdering, robbing, and much more are all immoral evil things that make the world a worse place to live in. So yes, good and evil actually do exist due to how the world is.
1. Good and bad are human perceptions. - TRUE
2. We have yet to transcend the human experience. - TRUE
3. We have built in reactions to good/bad things, I.e. Laughter, feelings of dread, ect. - TRUE
4. Conclusion - good and bad are real to humans. If it transcends to the animal kingdom or after death is another debate. This is what they call logic.
For a moment, lets not involve God or Satan. What do most people view as evil? Killing and hate. If you think for a moment killing people is okay, then it is considered unhealthy, and that you are in need of a psychologist. But maybe you don't believe in laws of any kind, and go against order in every way you can, and don't understand why people think it's wrong to kill. That is considered animalistic, and anything animalistic is, when you break it down, what people view as evil. Being humane is considered good. In religion, God was kind, and loved all, Satan wanted everyone miserable, by any means.
I am not saying animals are evil, with the term animalistic, as animals have a strong survival instinct, and don't really have a sence of the future in the whole, as humans do. They, like young children, don't have an idea of 'wrong or right' (and thus can't have a sense of good or evil) but think of things as 'what do I do to help me?' without fully thinking of the results, and not knowing better.
There are many reasons as to consider someone as truly good or truly evil. Many of these are from actions and behaviour of another person. In my opinion good and evil run the world, deciding the tempting fate of people whether they are destined for a truthful life or life full of hatred.
Does pain exist? Lets debate and discuss as much as we like, but to a person in pain, it very much exists and they can feel it.
The ability of humans to inflict pain on each other knowingly or unknowingly is what determines whether good and evil really exist.
A person has a child, and works hard to provide for the child. This action is driven by love.
A person has a child and abuses the child. This action is driven either by hatred or insanity, or simply not caring.
In the second example, the person is being evil either knowingly or unknowingly. If unknowingly (insanity, etc), then it would still be a matter of opinion if the deed done was evil or was simply an outcome of a medical condition. If the person knowingly hurts someone else, then it would be categorized as an evil action.
Moral values seem to be a very personal thing and everyone has their own definitions of these. However, evil is a definition of a deliberate act of hurting another person/animal/or anything that can get hurt.
'Evil' is only a word or a definition, and yes it does exist.
Evil people however, that is debatable due to the ability of humans to evolve from evil to good and back to evil and then sometimes back to good.
That's what good and evil are. Religions throughout history have told us that they exist, but I'm going to offer insight into some scientific evidence. If you look at all 8.7 million species of creatures on this planet, only one of them commits actions with malicious or noble intent. From canines, to fish, to birds, to chimpanzees, no animals on this planet actively commit acts for the purpose of detriment to another. Yes, animals will kill eachother, steal food from eachother, etc. but it is born out of a self preservation instinct, as writer Richard Koch points out. Humans are the only beings who will receive pleasure from the pain or pleasure of others.
In addition, humankind is the only species with a general morality in the form of rules. Every society in the history of the world has looked down on stealing, lying, cheating, murder, etc. Animals do not have rules in place to prevent these things. They simply do what they want if they are big enough to do it. Every society has also held a general moral standing that things such as honesty, fellowship, and love, are good. From 16th century African Tribes to modern day Missionaries, helping a neighbor has been something to be praised and lauded. The only conclusion I can come to is, yes, there are a good an evil, lest we would be no different from the animals around us.
The Bible in these arguments are an appeal to religion, but the question does not ask for a religious perspective, simply does it exist. These types of debates rely upon opinion and opinion only making the matter subjective. When people appeal to the Bible it is based upon the belief that it is the infallible word of God. It is not a matter of opinion for religious people, but a statement of what they believe therefore objective to them. All other views are based upon opinion. Non religious people will not accept the Bible as God's word and therefore not accept it as fact that demands to be proved, which in its primitive state relates to if it cannot appeal to physical senses it is therefore not real!
What do you Believe?
Ge 15:6 And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith.
The good, have a sence of..Faith, and trust. You understand feelings. Evil people, do not understand feelings. They have no emotion. They don't care about much at all! Some people don't want to...But that is the differents...Uncaring and evil are sadly mistaken. But, YES there are good, and bad people.
The “Yes’s” environment of the debate is an affirmation of moral realism (morality is an objective feature of the world independent of human opinion––good exists). On the other hand, the habitat of the “No’s” side of the debate is an affirmation of moral nihilism (nothing is truly moral or immoral––good doesn’t exist).
But the position that good does not exist is self-contradictory. E.g. rational thought/actions are governed by reasons. Doing X “for a reason” means thinking that all reasons (a, b, and c) in favor of doing X are better than all reasons (x, y, and z) not in favor of doing X. If “better” and “worse” are not considered, then the action or thought is a-rational. But “better” and “worse” are moral terms. Indeed, avoiding a moral connotation here is like trying to get your foot out of a bear trap––don’t think you will be walking off on it.
But if there is no such thing as “better” or “worse” reasons (moral nihilism), then rational actions/thought go out the window also. It is like saying carbon does not exist; if that is true, then there can be no more of our animal kingdom as we know it, because all animals are carbon-based life forms. Well then, nothing can be rational or irrational. Including, perhaps, the idea that nothing can be rational or irrational. Moral nihilism self-destructs! It can be formalized thus:
1) Rational thought/action requires a value/moral judgment
2) Moral nihilism denies the existence of value/moral judgments
3) Moral nihilism thus denies rational thought rationally
4) Therefore, moral nihilism is self-contradictory
Therefore, good truly exists!
Jesus, Jesus, how I trust Him!
How I’ve proved Him o’er and o’er;
Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus!
Oh, for grace to trust Him more!
There are always two sides of the coin. When Adam and Eve ate fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden, the Bible said that God condemned them and banished them and their descendants to a life of hardship. But if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit of the tree, they wouldn't have gained knowledge, and we would not be able to hear God's words through the Bible. So is that really a bad thing? On one hand, Adam and Eve went against God's orders and ate the fruit, but on the other hand, the fruit gave the people of the world knowledge so they could record God's words down for everyone to hear.
So far, the "Yes" side of this statement has only given examples that we can deduce to be good/bad because that is our belief. First, I would like to point out that this kind of reasoning is unreliable. Throughout the years, we have gone thorough much change in society. What we used to think was good might now be bad, and vice versa. For example, some ancient civilizations believed in human sacrifices to be "good" in order to please their Gods. Now, we believe killing, like this, to be cruel or "evil." In addition to that, our ways of thinking conflict very much with nature at times. When we think "murder is evil", aren't we murdering cows and pigs everyday because we think this food is good? When we think "equality is good", why is it natural for some people to be born with disabilities, which is unequal or unfair to them? Who is right? Sometimes, the things we believe to be good or evil do not make sense. When they do not make sense, I believe it is logical to question their existence. Additionally, please refrain from using any more pseudo-scientific claims (e.g. "good and evil energy") I agree with titanium1982 that "There [are] no conflicting forces locked in a cosmic struggle for your soul."
Answer me this, if a man robbed someone, would you consider him evil? No because clearly people who do that are in desperate situations, are only trying to get by. Not like the robber wants to do this, he just tries to get by. We can't take everything at surface value, everything has a logical explanation. Take Adam Lanza for example, the man who caused the Sandy Hook School shooting, who killed children a and school teachers. Now considering his actions, you would thing that would be the pure definition of evil. Actually no, it was because he was mentally disturbed. He wasn't a person of rational thinking. There are rational thinking men who have done Artois acts. Let's look at Adolfo Hitler, he was responsible for causing the holocaust and murdering millions of Jews and had them in concentration camps during WWII. Actually let's also look soldiers since we're talking about War, are soldiers evil for what they do? Or are they only evil if their not fighting for your country? The truth is good and evil is what society tells you what's good and evil. Instead of looking at these two terms, let's look at morals and ethics. My morals and ethics would differ from person to person, so at the end people just do what they think is right. How can good and evil truly exist when it's hard to determine what is right or wrong. Life isn't made up of easy non-thought provoking answers. It's never simple.
Ask yourself this question, is murder ALWAYS wrong? Well the obvious answer is yes murder is wrong. But if we change the question to, is it wrong to murder Adolf Hitler? The answer might not be as clear. Now out of everyone who reads this your opinions will likely vary. And perhaps even some people would say those who disagree with them are crazy or misguided, but is that really the case? Unless you are a religious person there appears to be no defining force of good and evil. Adolf Hitler probably though the holocaust was the right thing to do. But needless to say most people would disagree. So who here is in the right? Well you could say that you personally think it wrong to do so, but you cannot say it is universally wrong to do so. The closest thing you can achieve to a universal good is popular opinion. But even then the unpopular opinion is not necessarily evil. So in the end good and evil are nothing but concepts of the mind.
Ask yourself this question, is murder ALWAYS wrong? Well the obvious answer is no, murder is wrong. But if we ask the question, would it be wrong to murder Adolf Hitler? The answer may not be quite as clear. Opinions would vary, and that's the point. If you went around town and asked a couple people their definitions of good and evil you would get mixed answers. Now everyone may say that their definition is right and that the others our crazy or misguided but how can you be sure? Unless you are a religious person there is no defining force of good and evil. Adolf Hitler probably thought the holocaust was the right thing to no. Needless to say most people would disagree. So in the end good and evil are really nothing but concepts of the mind.
Humans tend to do what they consider to be the best course of action, relative to their needs. Therefore, they consider this action to be 'good.' If another person sees this action as conflicting with their beliefs, they will label that person as 'evil,' or wrong in some way. Based upon this principle, it can be concluded that the perception of good and evil is dependent on a person's beliefs and whether or not something meets their moral standards, indicating that true good and evil is nonexistent, and purely founded on egotistical ideologies.
Think about it, anyone in the world belives that they are doing good, take war for example. In a war, each faction believes that the other is evil. Any "evil" that one side sees, is considered as "good" by the other. So there is no fixed right or wrong, or good, or evil. There is just a different viewpoint. There are no "rules" for "good" or "evil". One cannot just say, "nope, that's evil, that's not in the book." One can't just assume that their morality is more "correct" than someone else's. That's why I hate it when people end up hating eachother because their OPINIONS on a matter that cannot have an answer, just because they confuse morality for an objective fact..
The "good" are only trying to have a perfect reputation to gain power. The "bad" people try to gain power a different way. A murderer is just trying to decrease the number of people they have to compete against for power. A dictator uses intimidation to try and make the people the are the ruler of submit to their authority. Good and Evil is just a way to categories people, a very unfair way to catagories people.
The ideas of good and evil don't actually exist in my opinion. Both words are subjective and depend on what the person in question thinks good is. For example, if I stole a ham from a deli to feed my staving family, would you call me good for attempting to remedy my family' situation, or bad for stealing? There are two sides to every situation. Every human has the potential to commit unpleasant acts, while most humans also have the potential for kindness and compassion. Humans are simply complex creatures who live in a world shaded by grey.
Let'stake a hypothetical scenario. A human being helps aliens kill the human race and take over the world. Evil, no? But what if the alien race's home planet was already draiend of resources and were in danger of becoming extinct? What if they saw humanity as already draining the resources of the planet too much and determined that there was no way to co-exist with us on the same planet? What if they also knew that there was no way we would give up our monopoly on the Earth's resource? So if that person helps the alien race survive, is what he did truly evil? Saving a species is considered noble and good, isn't it? And a tyrannical government with a monopoly on all the resources has always been portrayed as bad in literature and movies, hasn't it? So what that person did - save the alien race and cause genocide to humanity - is technically good.
Good and evil is highly opininated and there is no possible way that good and evil do not overlap on a regular basis. The only conflict in the world is not based on good and evil, it is simply two groups with differing/opposing opinions. The concepts of good and evil are always established by the authority in power, not ethics or beliefs. It is perfectly possible for an alternate version of our race where killing and enslaving millions can be called good and noble, if Hitler had won the war.