Is there such thing as evil?
 

I know Christians will straight up say of course, but I want to see what other people have to say and see different interesting views.

first, don't assume what people will say. inter-christian debate on the nature of evil is one of the hot topics of theology these days.

second, start any thread with your own contribution. thanks.

Despite the amount of controversy on questions like this that touch on theology they are usually pretty easily answered with the right approach. For evil's existance:

1) Define evil
2) Observe the world to see if there is any things that satisfy the definition of evil

Quite often when people argue over whether there is such a thing as evil they are really arguing over the definition of evil without even realising it... and it's stupid to argue over a definition since definitions are not universal: they are just made up.

So if you want a real answer, define evil first.

Like everything else in life, it's subjective. My reality is different from yours, and different from Osama Bin Laden's. In the world of the average American, he's evil incarnate. In his world, he's not evil, we are.

Outside of fiction, nobody believes they are evil. Every action has some sort of justification for the actor; they have good reasons for doing what they're doing, and there's nothing evil about it.

If you can't define a thing and point to it, it's a social or mental construct, and isn't "real". As Philip K. Dick wrote (I paraphrase), what's real is that which doesn't disappear when you stop believing in it. Notice what happens when you stop believing in evil!

I like that quote ratbastid... it's a great articulation of the way I see things as well.

An abstarct construct as ratbastid put better than I ever colud,
defined differently depending on your culture/belief system, usually meant as behaviour which is detrimental to the hapiness and well bieng of that society - it is as real in the sense that it can communicate a set of values.

I think that there is such a thing as pure evil. And that there is also pure good. We will rarely if ever encounter such rarified states in our lives. But they are constants that underpin much of existance.

Interesting. Say some more about that. How do you see these states occuring in actual life? In what way do they underpin much of existence?

Mostly this thread seems to be coming down against absolutes and the existence of abstractions like good and evil, so this assertion of yours really begs for some more discussion.

I do believe in evil, and conversely, in good. The only explanation for some of the things I saw in Africa, and I mean both evil and good.

Who would knowingly walk into a minefield to save a child that was not influenced by good? Who would impress a 12 year old girl into military service as a soldier and forced concubine that was not influenced by evil?

I'm no great philosopher or statesman or anything. Just my conclusions based on what I have observed.

But isn't good and evil based on the rules and laws you have grown to believe and follow and the culture. All countries are different. Some people believe that the military is good because they protect our country against another but then again some people would say that killing is not the way. Do get what I'm sayin?

I think purely malicious intent qualifies as evil action. It may not make the person involved evil, but certainly the act employed. I believe a large number of people would agree with me on that assertion as well.

You're correct in the idea that, at least in most cases, good and evil are relative to the belief system of a person or group. I think some types of "evil" are so widely shared though, that they can be called universal for practical purposes.

evil
1.-Morally bad or wrong; wicked
2.-Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
3.-Characterized by or indicating future misfortune
4.-Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous
5.-Characterized by anger or spite; malicious

Turn on CNN. You'll see and hear about it.

I understand your position, but I disagree. You seem to be basing your conclusion on the assumption that good and evil are not absolute, and to a great degree they are. All cultures define good and evil in more or less the same terms (that which is deliberately harmful vs. that which is deliberately helpful).

As a Christian, I believe that this is because God gave man a moral sense. But without regard to religious belief, a common sense of what is right and what is wrong developed for some reason.

For evidence of both, you need look no further than the outpouring of help from around the world for the survivors of Katrina, and, as Johnny Pyro pointed out, CNN.

I don't mean to be disrectpectful or anything (because I even donated to the charity relief of katrina) but isn't there so many more people out there dying everyday from poverty and other issues. Yes I do care about what has happened in New Orleans but we overlook the fact that there are so many in need that we don't even help out. Is it because events like katrina catch our attention more or is it because we see the poor people responsible for being in the state that they're in? I truly don't mean any disrespect to those whole lost loved ones but I just think it's insensitive to overlook the deaths of everyday. Anyways I know that's somewhat out of the topic of this discussion, I just had to express my opinion. And if you feel like what I said is wrong then I'm willing to listen to your opinions.

Really? Then what's guilt all about?

Unfortunately, RB, I don't have the book learning to give a rigorous demonstration of what to me appears another way of looking at a basic duality that creates through dynamic interaction. There is some basic structure to our universe. The structure has energy. The energy is the true basis for everything that there is. And the energy comes from a dynamic balance of there/not there, or something/nothing. We see manifestations of such energy as good or evil. This is a personal tenet based on a form of non-religeous "faith" or "belief". A sink of energy is a sign of evil, and an outpouring of energy is a sign of good. Considering we have had several billion years to make the interaction rather sophisticated and complex we may not always unravel whether an outpouring will be ending up positive, or a sink always ending up as an ultimate negative. That is why it would be so difficult to encounter the pure states of good and evil. In real life? The work of Jimmy Carter, American Saint. He is a source of good. And the work of BTK guy. He is a source of evil. Yes, I may be propounding a fairy tale, but it is a tale that I believe describes a lot of things in a (probably overly) simple manner. But it works for me.

There are opposites everywhere. For every action there must be an equal an opposite reaction (I think I got that right. Been a while.) So in my mind anything that would cause individuals or the world to prosper or grow in a beneficial way would be 'good'. Anything that destroys in a NON-beneficial way would be 'evil'. Yet without the 'evils' we would have no death = overpopulation: no pain = no appreciation of health: no disaster = no red cross assistence: no Osama = no way of boosting our self esteem since we'd never dream of doing anything so wicked as he would (jk). I'm not even satisfied with my explanation of how I view things. I guess it boils down to without 'evil' ' there would be no 'good'. Everything would be neutral, dull, and without purpose. Every religious group that I can think of feels that it is in a battle against 'evil'. Yet without some religious efforts there would be a lot of 'good' that would go undone. No one trying to be 'good' enough to gain their nirvana, heaven, or other peaceful end.

reaenna: Things are only not "neutral, dull, and without purpose" because people assign purposes and subjective attributes to them. In reality, things are exactly as you describe there, to the truly objective observer.

Good and evil, dull and exciting, purposeful and purposeless, are all simply human perceptions and have nothing to do with the world itself, except insofar as it interacts with us, and we with it.

That makes sense.

It makes me consider another question (hope this isn't a threadjack - just trying to expand on the thoughts here)... Do people require a differentiation in their minds of each one's only personal definition of evil? Can a person really function without a personal definition of good and evil or even good and relatively bad?

The best book I've ever read that deals with the topic of evil is M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie. He covers types of evil that he's encountered as a psychologist including evil that is induced by upbringing and neglect as well as what he considers to be pure evil.

If I recall correctly (it's been a few years) previous to writing the book, he did not believe in a personification of evil, e.g., the devil. After researching the book and studying more cases, he came to believe. It is largely because of this book and Peck's credentials that I myself have come to believe in a real evil intelligence.

Guilt is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. Guilt is how a good person makes it all right that they did a bad thing: the thing was bad, but at least they feel bad about it, so they're okay. Since I feel guilty about something, I'm obviously not evil. Guilt is just as artificial and made up as "evil", and we believe in it just as strongly.

That's a really good answer, kramus, and about the only one that's unassailable on grounds of logic. I completely get it: in your experience and belief, there are absolute, polar-opposite energies that underlie all existence. Okay! I don't agree, but I completely honor the validity of it for you.

By the way, I'm happy you've found a world-view that works for you; many people haven't.

Ditto for me RB.

Kramus, I think your explanation is as valid as any. The only difference I see between you and I is that I believe these forces are either intelligent in their own right or controlled by an intelligence.

I know I posted this one up and I asked for your own views, I just don't know what to believe. I guess time will tell.

As I see it, like posts above, Good and Evil are purely subjective. but here's my take on it.

At a personal level the definition of Evil is something that goes against your nature, and you following through even though you hvae any of the following (the degree that you disagree determines how "grey" the issue is):

1. You have guilt associated with it
2. You have remorse because it goes against your character
3. You understand that in your terms it would be an "injustice" however slight .

while these are very vague, I think that Good and Evil are driven by these precepts. Serial killers sometimes feel that what they have done is justified, and have no remorse or guilt. In thier eyes they have done no wrong, while in yours its completely the opposite.

I guess tying this in for any Religeon just complicates the issue as in any organiation like that there is pressure to identify and address these "evils" which can drive people to do outstanding things int he name of "good".

I feel that Karma is a very real thing, and I try to ensure that I only have beneficial things coming my way ..
that's my $.02

:)

...
 

Hmm. Pedophilia. Nuf said.

I think that's what nihilism is about. If someone could actually completely clear themselves of any concept of good/bad, good/evil and so on, I'm sure at least it would be a very different way of living. I'm not going to presume to know whether it's possible or not though, and I have no interest in trying it. :)

rat: I disagree with you on guilt. Some people may use it as a way of rationalizing their own actions, but I certainly don't use it that way, and I believe many others do not either.

Pedophiliacs are usually wracked with guilt and shame, it's part of what defines the condition, clinically speaking. However abhorant the behavior, there's an underlying humanity there that it would be shortsighted not to acknowledge. I want to be clear: that doesn't condone the behavior, it just allows for an understanding of and pity for the human being that would do such a hideous thing.

People who have compulsions like that, things that are out of their control can't be called evil. They're mentally ill. I believe that punishment for their actions is usually still appropriate, but it's not the same as evil.

See, I think pedophilia whould be categorized under "evil."


evil
1.-Morally bad or wrong; wicked

Pedophilia is bad and wrong.

2.-Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful

The victim usually lives with mental anguish and pain.

I know pedophila is a clinical disorder, but I still believe it is evil.

I don't understand how you conclude that guilt is artificial, but my point was that it's very common for people to believe that they have done wrong. And it's not true that guilt serves always to "make it all right that they did a bad thing", because there are many who aren't satisfied with themselves until they perform penances (religious or nonreligious) as well. And some aren't satisfied after even that.

evil is a contested term yes..i would need definition


by my definition...which would say evil as pure unjustified callousness acts..

yes, i think it exists in individual people.and far too frequently :)

...
 

This whole issue of whether or not pedophilia is evil or not really gets me worked up. I actually had to wait a minute before responding.

Ratbasstid- I obvously already stated the way I feel about it. I understand what you are saying. You are saying it's some psychological issue. Fine. I agree. What I also feel is that the 'act' itself is 'evil'
I agree with Johny Pyro completely. Ratbasstid - How can you argue that pedophilia is not morally bad or wrong?

I have experienced something in my life. It was horrible. I was molested and raped by my own father. It felt evil. He seemed evil. Almost possessed. The reason I am choosing to share this very personal experience with you is because I believe that people who share your opinion are the people that help to send these sick fucks to the psych ward - only to be released later on when their 'condition' betters! :|

I am religious. I do believe God exsists. Satan as well. I do believe that when you sucuumb or serender to the evil influences of satan - you are choosing to. Choosing to molest. Choosing to hurt others. I believe all evil things are from satan.

Ratbasstid - Please, if you don't mind.. I'd like to know if you believe evil exsists. If so, what is evil to you?

Rape, murder, genocide, and the holocaust; that should be proof enough for anyone.

I am of the belief that Good/ Evil ar simply differing shades of who we are, what we do as humans. There are obvious actions that will fall into a percieved shade of darkness....just as others will lean towards the light. Culture and society place the line between these two, as do personal understanding of the levels of acceptable practice.
The attempt to define what Evil is,has as much chance of a universal understanding as defining "God"....which is none. Still as a psycological experiment this excersize in expressing thought is fun....and can certainly lead to further examination of what we each belive the good/bad to be. The issue here will be the subjective nature of the definition, and where the line falls for each of us.

No, I do not believe in some evil intellect guiding the weak minded into acts of destruction, I see this as nothing more than a scapegoat for the nature of Humankind. Much as I do not accept a devine entity setting a Golden nirvana before us as a carrot on a stick. We are each responsible for our actions in this life....Maybe if we all realized this, there would be less darkness in this world, and fathers would not become monsters. Belief in Satan, or Evil...does not make things better in any way whatsoever. And if you are not making it better, What Are You Doing?

I'm absolutely NOT arguing that pedophilia is not wrong. In no way do I condone or excuse the act itself. I'm just saying that popping up with "Pedophilia. End of discussion." doesn't end the discussion. If you'll look at my last post, I definitely believe that those who molest, abuse, or exploit children--however driven by whatever demon drove them--deserve punishment. But I stop short of calling them evil, because they're a victim of their affliction too. I can find compassion for them, in other words. Doesn't mean I forgive them or offer them amnesty, but I have compassion for them. They're suffering too, and in their suffering they cause suffering for others. And I believe they should be separated from society indefinitely so they can't continue to do that.

I don't know how an act can be evil. An act simply is. It has impacts, for better or worse, and it can cause harm, but an act all by itself doesn't have intent. The actor might have intent, but the act itself doesn't. I think when you say "the act is evil", you're really saying "the actor is evil", which I reject on the grounds I stated above.

I do really get what you're saying too, 5757--that compassion can easily turn into forgiveness or absolution. I agree with you about that. I don't believe that's appropriate at all. I also really appreciate you sharing your personal experience, and I hope it all ended well for you, though I know it's probably something you'll continue to have to deal with for a long time.

Regarding whether I believe evil exits... Let me put it like this: I think people think in absolutes a lot, and I think that very very little--quite possibly nothing--in life is actually absolute. My experience is that religous people are more prone to absolutist thinking. I know there are things that people generally agree are evil. But is there evil out there in the world on its own, independant of human interpretation, like an object, a thing? I'm not so sure about that. If anybody finds some Evil laying out there in the street, put it in a box and send it to me so I can take a look at it.

My current favorite Philip K. Dick quote is: "What's real is that which doesn't disappear when you stop believing in it." By that definition, evil isn't real.

I actually think that the notion of "evil" is fairly harmful, and blinds us from our power to alter things in the world. Think about this: why is a thing evil? Because somebody says it's evil. What happens if we stop calling things evil? Evil disappears from the world. There are still acts that cause harm, but now we can deal with them as acts that cause harm. It's not some big Evil Thing that just exists and we have to run from it, it's actually seen for what it is, and can be addressed directly.

The above post is MY OPINION, and I'm clear it will rile some people up. I apologize to the reader for any riling this post or my other posts in this thread cause you.

ratbastid -- I'm curious about something. What if we described acts that cause harm as 'vicious' and acts that help people (or however you want to talk about acts that most people would describe as good). Then a virtuous person would simply be a person who tends to perform virtuous acts and a vicious person would be someone who performs vicious acts. Would you have trouble using this way of describing people? I'm wondering because we do seem to mean something when we say that someone is good or someone is evil, and this would allow us to use similar language without talking in absolutes.

I know pure evil exists, because I know it exists inside of me. Its presence is corrected by a greater abundance of pure goodness.

I believe that evil is the desire to do things that harm others or allow others to come to harm.

I guess what I reject is the categorization of people into definition-oriented slots. The world is more complex, interesting, and beautiful than that. Hitler was very good to those near to him. Charles Manson paints beautiful landscape paintings. So absolute words like "evil" and "vicious" just don't adequately describe them, however many things they did that harmed others. Both of those people did very, very bad things, but it's too simple and too easy to call them "evil" or point to their tendency to behave viciously and call them "vicious". It doesn't tell you anything about the person. And I think it simplifies things to the point of absuridty to say that there is any such thing as a "vicious person". As if there was any one way that anyone fundamentally IS! I guess I also have a real problem with saying that anyone IS any particular way, because how somebody IS in any particular moment is totally situational and subjective.

I don't mean to threadjack here, really I don't. I'm actually a little surprised I'm one of the few voices pulling for relativism on this subject.

Genom I must point out you still never answered the question of defining what you mean by evil?

Do you mean as they say the devil is? Or just every day occurrences?

Honestly if you ask me evil exists in a form unique to each individual person.

As for the other countries having problems I look at it this way, If we would have never helped them in the first place, or had Christian’s never domesticated them, they wouldn’t be in the situation they are in now. Unfortunately hind site is 20/20 and there’s no real way to tell what would have happened otherwise. And I feel to some extent we as a state are obligated to help them now cause of what we have done to them then.

But I did not do it that was in the past so it depends on how you look at it.

Yes, if it wasn't for those pesky 6 MILLION Jews he systematically slaughtered, I bet Hitler was a swell guy.

Relativism has its place in conversation, and I can't imagine any sane discussion of it containing references to Adolph Hitler. Sorry.
Sometimes, an evil mass-murdering killer...is just an evil mass-murdering killer.

Ratbastid I think your idea was noble and just, but that was a very bad example :) try using someone that didn’t use genocide as an answer.

It was just an example. And yes, I know that the first person to invoke Hitler loses the argument. ;)

My point is, if you can look from a bigger picture than your own personal perspective and your own position in history, even Hitler can't be authentically called evil, and he's maybe the single person that I'd come closest to using that word for. If Germany had won WWII, I guarantee you wouldn't feel that way about him. It's ALL subjective, even something as huge as that.

A lot of times, we see something that harms people, on whatever level and scope, and we say, "Well, it's Evil," as if that explains it, and then we don't have to think about it anymore, because it's uncomfortable to think about. Then we're off the hook of doing something about it. That's how the notion of "evil" blinds us and keeps us from dealing with the things that harm people. Aren't you interested at all in the historical, social, and psychological factors that led to the Holocaust, for instance? I mean, things happen for a reason, don't they? Or is "it was evil" a sufficient explanation for you? And if so, how will you ever hope to prevent that sort of thing from ever happening again?

This conversation has become pretty circular. I believe I've thoroughly stated my opinion. I'll keep an eye on this thread, but unless somebody has something new to say, my contribution here is complete.

Ratbastid,

I would actually say that Hitler (who referencing is entirely valid in a thread like this) strongly speaks against your argument of moral relativism.

From what I know of him (and I know somewhat more than the average person), if anyone can be called "evil", it's him. Had Germany gotten what they wanted, an armistice with them in control of Western Europe, 6 million people would still be murdered in the most brutal fashion.

And I do believe he passes your "Dick" test :)

I really would encourage you to read "People of the Lie", as it addresses and allows for exactly what you talk about.

Though i doubt this would be Ratbastid's point, here's my complication to that assessment.

Is there a sinner so bad, that even Jesus cannot save them?

Is there sin so grave that it can *completely* wipeout the image of God that we are created in from the one who commits it?

If salvation depends on us not sinning *that* much, whatever *that* might be...i'd say we're all in a heap of trouble.

I don't argue for the absolute universality of redemption...but that none of us is ever driven so far from God that redemption would not be possible if we chose it.

Yes....there are in my opinion.

Say...oh...perhaps....Someone who poses as the servant of this God, and then uses the trust garnered because of it to molest a child in his care. Or maybe someone who claims to be the mouthpiece of this God, and then condones murder because he does not like(love) another of this Gods children. How about someone who blows up an abortion Clinic ....or a Bus in Isreal. Maybe fly a plane into a building.

As I have said in this thread, I really dont see things as good/evil. As a matter of fact everything I wrote above is simply to prove a small point:

By invoking a "God", in an attempt to define Evil....you pretty much remove any clear personal opinion, and instead begin to state religious opinion.

back button instead... :)

That's bollocks, and i think you know it.

Personal opinion=clarity? The moment someone capitolizes Evil, they recognize some moral authority that differentiates between good and evil, one that makes absolutes possible. So you personally don't beleive in absolute good and evil. But anyone in this thread that says that evil exists is talking about some knowledge of a framework by which human actions can be evaluated. and how exactly, would this be some how completely and categorically different than religious evaluations of human action?

What you state here isn't just an unjustified attack on religious thought, but also represents the obsfucation of the pitfalls of non-religious approaches to such questions as evil. You (or anyone's) personal opinion is not a guarantee of clarity, truth, or anything else.

An a priori dismissal of the religious is nothing to be proud of.

/for the record, i don't think any one of those actions listed could permanently remove a person from the realm of grace. Those responsible for the death of Jesus, who commit nothing less that diecide, are forgiven.

Deicide, Martin :D. Just for the record, nothing in my position is incompatible with either the position Martin Guerre advances, that no action can remove a person from the realm of grace.

Are you saying then, that in the eyes of God: Stalin, Hitler and Saddam Hussein are morally equivalent to Mohandas Gahndi, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr.?

And haven't the Jews been almost universally vilified for the last 2000 years give or take?
This is Forgiveness?

No. Nothing i said could support that repellant idea. What i am stating is that i believe evil to be real. It is a grave and serious problem, stemming from disrelationship with God and causeing all manners of injustice and atrocity.

But i also believe that God's reconciling love is greater than any evil, and should the guilty repent, that God offers forgiveness, and shows the path away from destruction and evil. To my knowledge, none of the tyrants you listed have/did repent, and seek forgiveness and reconciliation. It is not my place to judge the living or the dead. But as far as we know their works, these men did great evil. I do not know how any of us will meet God's justice, but i confess that i do believe all come to account for what they have done.

And further, any Christian anti-semitism is a serious problem. As followers of Christ, Christians owe not just tolerance, but loving respect for our brothers and sisters. It is ours to own that our tradition has been used to persecute and create the conditions for genocide. It is an evil which we must repent, and bear the burden of attempting repair for what we have collectively wraught.

I take evil seriously. But i still hold that grace is the final word of God. For God so loved the world that God gave God's only Son, that *whosoever* believes in him shall not perish, but have ever lasting life.

There's no fine print to that. No "offer only valid in certain states, and if you haven't been really bad."

I believe that this is what the conversation here is all about. That evil does, in fact, exist in the world. In this we are in agreement. I understand you from this board as a religious man, and I meant to cast no aspersion in this regard.

Let me quickly add that I think that some of those who refuse to assign a code of moral interpretation upon human behavior are simply doing so as a defense mechanism. These are people who've been burned emotionally, and seek to rationalize emotion away by placing little value in it. Those life events which are almost entirely experienced through the senses (Love, Trust, Committment, Faith, etc) are discredited on a philosophical level (ie., not based in reality) and then cast aside.

It's funny... I wandered into the Philosophy forum intending to start a thread on this subject, but it has already been done for me.

Today, while driving to work, I started thinking about good and evil. A common belief among scientific minds (that believe in such things) is that good and evil are subjective things and if something is good or evil lies somewhere on a continum. That is to say, there are many shades of gray between the two.

Another belief is that good is a positive force, and evil is mearly the absence of that force. For instance, cold is the absence of heat. There is no actual thing called coldness... it is just the concept of something without the real thing called heat. The same is true for light and dark. There is no darkness, there is only the absence of light. Therefore, good is the only real thing, and evil is just wherever there is no good.

This is all fine and well... but how do we really know that good is the "real" force? How can we be sure that evil isn't the only real thing, and what we think of as good is just our own struggle against it? Maybe animals killing each other - doing whatever they have to survive - things we generally think of as evil and try to avoid... maybe that's the only thing that's real. "Evil", or what we call evil, is just the natural state of things, and we're just fighting against it.

Just to tie this thought into the thread:
The pure evil inside of you does exist. It is all you are without personal intervention. The greater abundance of pure good you speak of, is not an actual thing, but the elimnation of evil within yourself. Putting a spin on your last sentence, evil is the LACK OF desire to do NO harm to other or to NOT allow others to come to harm. Interesting, eh?

The bit about evil being the only real thing was my revelation for the day. I'm not saying I believe it's true, or any of it is true, but I do like to think about these things. That's the whole point of philosophy, right? :)

I think there are a number of reasons to think that good is a real thing, even that good is the real thing, and that evil doesn't really exist. Firstly, no one ever does evil for the sake of evil, but only for the sake of some good, but people sometimes, though perhaps rarely, do good for the sake of good itself. Even if people are doing evil just for the pleasure of doing evil, they're still doing evil for the sake of a good, because pleasure is a good. Secondly, good is a prerequisite for doing evil. The attributes of a being which allow it to do evil -- its power, its intelligence, even its existence -- are all in themselves goods. It's just like a knife used in a murder -- even though it is being used for evil purposes, it can still be a good knife.

"Good" and "evil" are both forces. I don't believe that either could simply be the "lack of" the other. I believe that good and evil coexist in pretty much everyone, with rare exception. There are those who are so pure in heart, that evil is only (if at all) superficially present. Not even enough to be noticed. Also, there are some who have absolutely no good in them. On the whole, however, most people live with a mixture of good and evil, and the mixture strengthens towards one side or the other from time to time. For most people, the mixture is fairly constant, and might only waver if someone makes them angry, etc. Also, there's "conflict"...

Let's take for example that both good and evil exist in people, in units up to 100. Most people might have 10 - 20 evil, and 70 - 90 good (we're not adding to 100, so don't start doing that, this is not a balance thing). For those who feel the conflicts of their good and bad sides, it might be more like 40 - 50 evil, and 70 - 90 good. There's the same amount of good, but there's more evil to temper it, and to cause conflict.

I would say I'm likely a 90 or 95 good, 80 evil. There is a lot of conflict, but good always wins because there's more of it. The evil is a constant battle though, so it's far from a "background" feeling.

Actually, I thought of a knife as a perfect example of everything being evil. All sharp blades cut indiscriminately. If an innocent child picks up a knife by the blade, it cuts him. It doesn't matter that he is innocent, it acts in an evil way upon him. In fact, no matter who you are, how good or evil you are, if the edge pulls across your flesh it will hurt you. If the knife itself were truely good, it would not cause anyone harm... even if used for that purpose. The knife does not do that because it exists for one reason, to rend what was whole. To do this so indiscriminately sounds evil to me.

How do you know this? Is it faith, or do you have a logical reason to believe so? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be an ass or anything... I, personally, do not know if one, both, or either actually exist. I'm always looking for reasons to feel one way or the other.

You quoted the first two lines of my post... pretty much everything that followed (the rest of my post) was my explanation of that thought.

It's not a faith thing, it's just how I feel. I feel it's logical that they both exist in all of us for the reasons I outlined- people can experience inner struggle with their own forces of good and evil... people can be mostly good, or mostly evil, or really just so neutral that there's virtually none of either.

For another example:

Take me again. Assume i'm "80" evil and "90" good (everything out of a possible "100", to put perspective on "amounts" of good and evil).

Let's also make up a person names Zippy. Zippy is 5 evil and 15 good.

By both accounts, the difference in good and evil is only "10".

However, there's pretty much no real good or evil in Zippy, so Zippy is really just kinda passive with regard to most everything. Zippy doesn't care to help, but doesn't care to hurt, either. Zippy just doesn't feel those impulses.

Also, my difference of "10" is between two very high numbers- "80" evil and "90" good. I have a lot of good in me, so I do a lot of good. I also have a lot of evil in me which sometimes tempers my goodness, but never overtakes it. Because both levels are so high, however, they often clash because they're both very strong forces looking to occupy the same space or control the same person.

The crux of my argument is that, in every person, good and evil are separately-accounted-for portions of the personality, not impulses that counteract each other equally (as in, not "40" evil and "60" good, or "10" evil and "90" good- it's not a matter of them balancing proportionally towards a total- they each exist independently, and fight each other as other impulses do). As with any component of a person's personality, soul, whatever, some impulses are very strong, and some are not as strong... or even weak, or non-existent. I believe this because it is the result of my logical answer from many periods of thought on the subject, and a lot of time spent observing human behavior (I pretty much do that nonstop).

Analog -- what you give isn't really an argument, it's an explanation. You write "I believe this because it is the result of my logical answer from many periods of thought." What in these periods of thought led you to believe you could quantify (at least in theory) how strong one's impulses of good and evil are? And what makes you think they're more static than dynamic?

Nothingx -- you say the fact that a knife cuts everything indiscriminately makes it evil. First of all, note that given what you said above, this means that a dull knife is a good knife, which is counter-intuitive to say the least. If I'm trying to cut meat, I definitely want a sharp knife -- in fact, for pretty much everything I use knives for, I want a sharp knife. Second, it seems clear to me that, all other things being equal, a teleological account of good and evil is the best, since, among other things, it allows us to speak of good and evil in the same sense in different contexts. It's also fairly intuitive -- we're doing good when we're doing what we're 'supposed' to be doing. And, of course, it doesn't require a deity. Now, a lot of people object to a teleological account of human morality on the grounds that we either do not have an end or, if we do, we don't know what it is. But that's not the case when we're talking about inanimate objects; we know what they're for, because we made them. We know that a knife is for cutting, because we made it to cut things. So it just seems obvious that a sharp knife is a good knife, because it fulfills its ends.

Oh no, I was by no means saying that people's impulses are static. Obviously people's emotions and impulses change frequently.

Also, seeing as everything is theoretical and nothing about "good" and "evil" can be proven in any way, then pretty much every argument is a person's experiences (or expertise) and opinions presented as a method of reasoning.

I can't think of a better way to get my point across. :)

I have no definition of evil. If you're looking for one, look in the dictionary. If I had a definition I wouldn't come here asking for one. I do respect everyone's opinion. I can't grasp on to any one's belief, but your opinions with your experience does help my understanding to understand good and evil in a universal view. This thread should be ended because there is no true meaning or answer for this question. Let this help us understand other people and their feelings and hope for the best for all of us. Thank you for your many replies. This was one of my first threads and I am amazed by how many different opinions we have. Let us all grow together as a community to be responsible to our world and the future of tomorrow. Thank you all for everything. This is where I end this with my last reply to you all.

I totally understand what you're saying, and I think its a pretty interesting model for good and evil in people. In particular because I'm into game programming and simulated behavior, and your theory is based on numbers which translates into code easily. What I was looking for is an argument for your theory, which you gave: "it's just how I feel"... and that's fine with me.

Hilarious! :lol: I didn't even think of it that way. I believe though, that the "good" you speak of there is a different kind of "good" than I was refering to. Good in that sense means well honed, while good in my sense means not evil. You certainly wouldn't call a dull knife a good knife, but you wouldn't call it an evil knife either, would you?

Your argument for inanimate objects is a good one, but it assumes that humans are not evil to start with. If an evil man builds a bomb to kill millions of innocent people, would the bomb still be a good thing? It served its purpose well, right?

Well, I'm a Christian, so yeah, I assume humans are not evil to start with. But I don't think you have to be a Christian to believe this.

And yes, the bomb would still be a good bomb, but the man would be an evil man.