Good vs. Evil - For Steven (medicsti)
It's not relative. Truth is truth
Its all in the rationale of the "doer", "good" can be done with "evil" intent, and "evil" can be done with "good" intent. Like Forrest said, there's (at least) 2 sides to every event.
We got into the discussion of good vs. evil in another thread. I would like to discuss this.
Here is a quote:
"Good and evil are different, as their names imply. But, in my own humble opinion, they are both of them aspects of my Lord. He is present in the one, absent in the other, and the difference between presence and absence is great, as great as my feeble mind can grasp. Yet absence implies presence, absence is not non-existence, and we are therefor entitled to repeat, 'Come, come, come, come.'" - A Passage to India, ch. 19
To illustrate the point.
When you flip a light switch off in a light room and there is dark, does the light "not-exist"? Something does not have to be A or B(not A). It is possible that there is light, but our eyes cannot see that light. Would that be called "darkness" or "lack of light"?
Is it possible to have neutral actions? Meaning actions that are neither good or evil.Or is evil implied by acts that are not "full of good"?
Is someone capable of understanding a different good or evil than your own?
Is there an absolute good or absolute evil? How can that be determined?
Here is a quote:
"Good and evil are different, as their names imply. But, in my own humble opinion, they are both of them aspects of my Lord. He is present in the one, absent in the other, and the difference between presence and absence is great, as great as my feeble mind can grasp. Yet absence implies presence, absence is not non-existence, and we are therefor entitled to repeat, 'Come, come, come, come.'" - A Passage to India, ch. 19
To illustrate the point.
When you flip a light switch off in a light room and there is dark, does the light "not-exist"? Something does not have to be A or B(not A). It is possible that there is light, but our eyes cannot see that light. Would that be called "darkness" or "lack of light"?
Is it possible to have neutral actions? Meaning actions that are neither good or evil.Or is evil implied by acts that are not "full of good"?
Is someone capable of understanding a different good or evil than your own?
Is there an absolute good or absolute evil? How can that be determined?
Heaven is eternity with God, Hell is eternity without God.
*Flame Suit Donned*
...Honest Answer Coming
There are no neutral actions, every action is either a good action or an evil action, regardless of whether it was done thoughtlessly/innocently/ignorantly/etc.
There are only true "good" and true "evil" if infact God exists. Anything that is contrary to the nature of God is evil and everything that is inline with the nature of God is good.
The relative good and evil some people believe in is based on the belief that "there is no way to know what is really true." They believe that "there is no way to know what is or is not really true", yet they believe that their statement "that there really is no way to know what is really true" is true... Which is not consistent and killing itself.
There is only true truth, there is no false truth in true truth. If it's not true all the time, then it is not true. True good is that that is inline with the nature of God, true evil is that that is contrary to the nature of God.
-Steven
And you are right, there are only two sides: Good and Evil.
Killing is either good or it is evil.
Stealing is either good or evil.
Cheating is either good or evil.
Thinking evil thoughts is either good or evil.
These four examples are either all good or all evil.
You are confusing trying to define the true nature of good and evil with trying to rationalize the actions. Someone may have a seemingly legitimate reason to kill someone in their eyes, however murder is still murder regardless of that legitimate reasoning.
And just a side note, it's bound to get posted sooner or later...
Even if you say you don't believe in God, it does not mean that you can play god yourself and uncreate the Creator. God exists whether you believe in Him or not.
Even if you say you don't believe in God, it does not mean that you can play god yourself and uncreate the Creator. God exists whether you believe in Him or not.
But "good" or "evil" according to whom? A person can commit any act, good/evil/indifferent without regard or thought to what society or god thinks. It will be a good/evil/indifferent act to them. Just because we tell them its right or wrong in our minds, doesn't mean it is in theirs. That's part of the awesomeness that makes us Human.
I also understand the religious aspect of it, but I prefer to not make it my only answer. Again something that makes being a Human pretty damn cool
I also understand the religious aspect of it, but I prefer to not make it my only answer. Again something that makes being a Human pretty damn cool
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
But "good" or "evil" according to whom? A person can commit any act, good/evil/indifferent without regard or thought to what society or god thinks. It will be a good/evil/indifferent act to them. Just because we tell them its right or wrong in our minds, doesn't mean it is in theirs. That's part of the awesomeness that makes us Human.
I also understand the religious aspect of it, but I prefer to not make it my only answer. Again something that makes being a Human pretty damn cool
I also understand the religious aspect of it, but I prefer to not make it my only answer. Again something that makes being a Human pretty damn cool
Acts of evil are not relevant to rationale, circumstances, or context. It has an absolute definition on its own and can not be changed by outside influences.
Causing intentional harm to anyone else is evil. What causes debate is whether the act of evil is; justified, unavoidable, forgivable, etc. That requires our ability to reason and other philosophical viewpoints. However, none of that changes the fact that it was still an evil act.
Shooting Hitler in 1938 would have been an evil act. No matter how many others would have benefited from this act, the act in and of itself is by definition, evil. Adding qualifiers does not change the fact that it was evil.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
That is not true. The act is good or evil regardless of the doer's rationale.
And you are right, there are only two sides: Good and Evil.
Killing is either good or it is evil.
Stealing is either good or evil.
Cheating is either good or evil.
Thinking evil thoughts is either good or evil.
These four examples are either all good or all evil.
And you are right, there are only two sides: Good and Evil.
Killing is either good or it is evil.
Stealing is either good or evil.
Cheating is either good or evil.
Thinking evil thoughts is either good or evil.
These four examples are either all good or all evil.
Killing is always "wrong"; a life is ended. The reason for killing, however, may be "right".
It needs to be mentioned again. I think people are confusing cause with effect.
Acts of evil are not relevant to rationale, circumstances, or context. It has an absolute definition on its own and can not be changed by outside influences.
Causing intentional harm to anyone else is evil. What causes debate is whether the act of evil is; justified, unavoidable, forgivable, etc. That requires our ability to reason and other philosophical viewpoints. However, none of that changes the fact that it was still an evil act.
Shooting Hitler in 1938 would have been an evil act. No matter how many others would have benefited from this act, the act in and of itself is by definition, evil. Adding qualifiers does not change the fact that it was evil.
Acts of evil are not relevant to rationale, circumstances, or context. It has an absolute definition on its own and can not be changed by outside influences.
Causing intentional harm to anyone else is evil. What causes debate is whether the act of evil is; justified, unavoidable, forgivable, etc. That requires our ability to reason and other philosophical viewpoints. However, none of that changes the fact that it was still an evil act.
Shooting Hitler in 1938 would have been an evil act. No matter how many others would have benefited from this act, the act in and of itself is by definition, evil. Adding qualifiers does not change the fact that it was evil.
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car