|
| Thread: On the Origin of Good and Evil |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:02 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 19:07, 21 Jul 2011.
|
Also @all the people who say the Church (and I'm guessing you mean the catholic christianity branch in particular, not just religion in general) is responsabil for the concept of good and evil:
Really? You don't think the concept of good and evil existed waaaay before that? The terms of Good and Evil have always been abused by the people in power. Be they a religious organization or a wordly one. This is not a religion specific issue as I'm sure you should all know already...
EDIT:
@Tsar
Well the name is "origins" but like I said in my post I only explained where I saw its origins in order to make my thoughts on "good and evil" more understandable. But yeah I'm game for both since I'm really interested to have you explain to me how exactly the Church is to blame for the concept . While I don't think we could go in any wrong direction with either option (as long as we keep it to the concept part not the church part of the dicussion) perhaps wait for a word from our resident Sauron.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:07 PM |
|
|
No, before the establishment of the church people abided by a code of honor (refering primarily to the greeks and barbarian tribes, also the romans), the concept of good and evil was and is unncecessary. Twas a tool of the church to get people to submit via fear rather then example. Which is doomed to fail, because you can only lead via example.
As always my own opinion and perspective on the current discussion.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:09 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 19:10, 21 Jul 2011.
|
How are Good and Evil fundamentally different from Honorable and Dishonorable if I may ask? They both lay down things as "correct" and "incorrect" decisions don't they? Wouldn't you rather see them as an exstension of the concept?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:12 PM |
|
|
I like your explantion on G&E Azagal. It's not an easy thing to nail down but I think you chose a good way of explaining your thoughts.
About the "Church", I don't know if my reference was a part but for clarity to all others; anytime, I refer to the "Church" it is the One Christ called...the all inclusive body that is formed of all believers and their actions.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:13 PM |
|
|
Alas you are correct, but the code of honor with your fellow man and the god(s) (refering to demi-gods when i use plural on god), while the concept of good & evil is vague and is our own perspective rather then the common good which following the code of honor bestows.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:20 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 19:21, 21 Jul 2011.
|
So you're saying that the concept of G&E is vague while the "common good" is crystal clear? Also from what I understand you're implying that acting honorable will always benefit the common good?
I've spent 4 years of my life in Japan and I have yet to meet a society in which honor plays as important a role but from my experience honor is an extremely personal thing. Honor may in many intances be bound to a societies values but it doesn't have to be. Things have been done due to "honor" that are anything but for the common good so I'm curious where you get this certainty from.
And again I don't see how the two ideas are fundamentally different or how something honorable is any easier to define than something "good".
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:22 PM |
|
|
In my viewpoint, the origins of good and evil or right and wrong are not as important as the fact that we recognize them. My religion also means a fair deal to me (though I do not actively practice as much as when I was a child), so of course everybody should be able to speak their religious viewpoint freely as long as they keep it respectful. (Just like people should keep their non-religious viewpoints respectful.) I do not really discuss my religion much on this board though. Just not comfortable giving out certain information. (Much like my name, you won't get that publicly)
I've disagreed with Elodin on some political points (I also disagree with many other members on various points), but I always welcome him (and others) to post more as if everybody had the same viewpoint on everything, the world would be dull, grey and boring with no reason for anything else to exist. Differing opinions keep the world interesting. We have to keep the conversation diversified but at the same time I see many people stubbornly going back and forth rather than acquiesce or simply agree to disagree. I know often people will stubbornly continue because they fear the possibility of being wrong, somebody bowing out of a conversation doesn't really give the other side a "win" either. Life is too complicated for that.
I'm positive Corribus is up to the challenge of (at least making a valiant attempt at) keeping this forum in line more than before when the mods were very far understaffed.
I mean, look at the guidelines he has in place now:
Quote:
2. QP-worthy posts are respectful in tone. If it doesn’t look like something you could have written to a friend, it doesn’t deserve a QP. If you put down or make unwarranted generalizations about people, or groups of people, it doesn’t deserve a QP. Even if you are responding to a post to disagree with it, the post’s author should still feel good that you read what they had to say and responded to it in a pleasant manner.
Quote:
4. QP-worthy posts voice new, independent ideas. Cutting and pasting something you read elsewhere, even if it provokes discussion, is not a QP-worthy post.
5. QP-worthy posts provoke good discussion. No post exists in a vacuum. I will be looking not only at the post itself, but at the kinds of posts it inspires. If your posts tend to attract a lot of negative attention, most likely your posts are not very high quality.
6. QP-worthy posts say positive things about other people and other posts. This doesn’t have to be the land of Care Bears, but quality posts thrive in a positive atmosphere. People write good, inspired prose when they’re happy. Even disagreements can be written in a positive way. If someone makes a good point, even one that you are about to refute, say so. If someone made you stop and rethink about an issue, even if you didn’t change your opinion, thank them for it. Such little things really make for high quality posts.
Quote:
What I think needs to be penalized:
1. Cursing, particularly when used as part of an insult. In flagrant cases you probably won’t get a warning.
2. Linking to or posting inappropriate material.
3. Repeated insults, ad hominem attacks, and the like. Frankly I find it insulting that moderators have to define what an insult is just so that some posters can cleverly find ways to insult people without officially insulting them. So I won’t define it. You’re all adults and you know what an insult is. I’m not going to throw out penalties every time someone insults someone else, because it’s going to happen and that’s a part of debate, but making a habit of putting people or groups of people down will earn you some warnings and, if it doesn’t stop, a thump on the head.
4. Trolling. Are you posting off-topic one-liners with the obvious intent to derail discussion? That won’t be tolerated. Let me be clear – intent is the key word here. This is supposed to be a fun place and some spamming, throwing of good natured barbs, sarcasm and jokes are tolerable and actually desirable. But if you’re consistently trying to be a jerk and don’t contribute anything else… well, now you know what will happen.
Consequently, over half of this post is not QP worthy 
Markkur, you need not feel ostracized. You are as welcome here as anywhere else on the internet. I suppose that may not sound reassuring, but at least we're going to do our best to look your for your best interests and those of the community as a whole. If somebody appears to be speaking to you in a disrespectful tone there are a few things to consider (it may not look the same to other people for one, we all read text in different tones as text is tone deaf), sometimes it can be cleared by having people elaborate. If there is anything absolutely obvious about it being a message intended as unfriendly and malicious, people will be warned and punished accordingly if they do not change their self destructive course. Corribus has already done this in fact.
Hope I have helped in some way.
(I know... TLDR)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:32 PM |
|
|
I honestly do not understand why everybody having this discussion.
Good/Evil is all a matter of personal perception and in the eye of the Beholder.
I do not believe that *true* Good or Evil exist, as both are formed in personal morality of each person. As far as I know, every person intentionally acts to do Good according to their own Moral compass (or lack thereof).
Examples? Here ya go:
To some people Abortion is an act of the utmost Evil, because it destroys the life of the affected embryo. I personally disagree this is necessarily evil, and plenty of people share my opinion that Abortion has its uses and can - in some context- be a Good-natured measure.
I mean, everybody knows how *controversial* Abortion is, with its pros and cons and all, but mind: I only bring it up as an EXAMPLE of Good/Evil being determined by somebody PERSONAL opinions. It is a subject on which opinions differ and either opinion is easy to understand by any level-headed person. I do however NOT intend to have this turn into another effing Pro/Con discussion that will go on to no end :/
Another example?
Neo-Nazis for instance. Yeah, another case of controversy, but one that I feel is easy for me to explain how the ideas of Good or Evil are based on personal perspective: Most people (me included) see Hitler as one of the most despicable, EVIL people ever to walk the planet... but others, most notably neo-nazis see him as a good-natured Hero of righteousness.
So which side is the correct one? In my mind, neither. Why? Because to every person, the definition of Good or Evil is different. They are opinions, and opinions are known to be unique for each individual. I personally choose to believe that, no matter how idiotic or short-sighted or alien they may appear to me, opinions cannot be correct or incorrect.
Why? Because they are subjective statements (just like Good and Evil are subjective entities), and subjectivity has the trait to never, ever be correct or incorrect. Only things which have a FACTUAL fundament can be correct or incorrect, which is something that "Good" or "Evil" lack, as they are used on a NON-FACTUAL aka subjective base.
What I am trying to say is this: In my mind, Good and Evil are opinions. Some actions can be seen as morally despicable by some, while others can admire them. Those differences are not BASED on the facts themselves imo, but on subjective opinions on both the concept of "Good and Evil" AND on the morality behind these aforementionned actions. Opinions is the key word here. Opinions, which are unable to be correct or incorrect because they have no true objective basis.
Which is why I fail to see the point of this discussion. Opinions cannot be proven or disproven, be bunked or debunked, or be correct or incorrect. You can only agree or disagree with them, which can create some sort of discussion early in the thread, but will ultimately end up going in circles. I just fail to see the point behind it.
Right, and now I'm out of here with my whining.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:36 PM |
|
|
Lexxan pretty much summed up what I was meaning to say but much, much better. 
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Opinions cannot be proven or disproven, be bunked or debunked, or be correct or incorrect. You can only agree or disagree with them, which can create some sort of discussion early in the thread, but will ultimately end up going in circles. I just fail to see the point behind it.
Absolutely true. The only way we will totally find out if our opinions are entirely true is when we die, so we can easily agree to disagree until then. =)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you're saying that the concept of G&E is vague while the "common good" is crystal clear? Also from what I understand you're implying that acting honorable will always benefit the common good?
I've spent 4 years of my life in Japan and I have yet to meet a society in which honor plays as important a role but from my experience honor is an extremely personal thing. Honor may in many intances be bound to a societies values but it doesn't have to be. Things have been done due to "honor" that are anything but for the common good so I'm curious where you get this certainty from.
And again I don't see how the two ideas are fundamentally different or how something honorable is any easier to define than something "good".
I'm saying that honor is led and taught by example, which is a pure and the best way to teach, while the concept of good and evil (in my opinion) incites fear and almost no example. A society built on fear will crumble, whereas the one built on example lasts (not forever mind you)
I'm not saying that honor is prestine, I'm simply saying that if we maintain a society with fear, then soon all hell will break loose, beacause people sense the injustice and yet they know no better. Seriously if you were permitted to murder and steal, how many men and women do you think would take the chance and abandon all ideals of G&E?
While honor is self applied via an example of someone who is honorable. When a man/woman applies self restraint to themselves is much better then having laws to keep them in line.
It is simply better not perfect .
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 07:59 PM |
|
|
Can we all agree that our neurophysiology, which makes assessments of "good" and "evil" possible, is determined through genetics?
Also, while I think we will disagree over whether "good" and "evil" exist as absolute, objective concepts, I think we can all agree that perceptions of "good" and "evil" are real things. There is no denying that people rank things as being "good" or "evil". This thread was originally intended to ask why that is. I view the existence of "good" and "evil" as absolute, objective concepts to be a tangential topic. This comment is directed primarily toward Lexxan's post.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 08:07 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 20:09, 21 Jul 2011.
|
To be honest I don't quite get what you're getting at except that the concept of Honor is somehow superior to the concept of good and evil and that G&E inspires fear. And on the fear part you base the rest of your argument.
How can you not enforce "good" by leading by example? I agree leading by example is a strong form of leadership but I don't see why you shouldn't be able to enforce good by leading by example. Afterall it's a method with which you enforce something. That something can just as much be "good" as it can be honor, why couldn't it be?
Also don't you think that laws are the perfect example of leading by example? With laws you and the government restrain yourself ergo telling people who obey the law that they are doing good or are acting honorable will those who break the rules act "dishonorable" and aren't tolerated. The laws are an example of your governmental body living by example rather than trying to constrain you.
I get that you're into the whole honor thing but that doensn't mean you have to ascribe it qualities that aren't that exclusive at all.
Quote:
There is no denying that people rank things as being "good" or "evil". This thread was originally intended to ask why that is.
Aha ok. Back to that then.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 08:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
So would you say that those Penguins have a concept of good and evil, of right and wrong?
I read a lot there but I saw nothing that would imply they do. Did I miss something?
I think so.
I mean, IF the concept of Good/Evil has a purpose and WAS genetically "induced" those guys would have a serious need for it. Their social interaction is rather interesting, because it offers so many opportunities to be either evil or TOO good, if ruled only by simple instincts like survival or care.
They court. They mate. Right before winter, mind you (the reason is, that the cub will be hatching at the end of winter). Then the males overtake the egg, while the females take their leave for 2 full months. In these two months of eternal darkness at temperatures of -60 and wind speeds over 200 km/h, after they have fasted two months already, leaving the sea and marching to the breeding place and so on, they keep the egg warm and huddle together, taking turns, within and without, being constantly in move, except in the middle. They pull all this through, and after that the ladies come back and overtake, bringing a couple kilos of food for the chick, allowing the gents to finally feed, after losing half their weight.
It's obvious that here lurks GOOD behaviour and EVIL behaviour (stay in the mittle and defend your place, no matter what, because it's WARM there...)
If one parent dies for whatever reason or doesn't reappear, the survivor does NOT die for the chick, though, but leaves it alone to feed.
This strategy of hardship for the parents is giving the chicks a maximum of time to grow in spring, summer, and autums and is therefore pretty good for long-term survival, which wouldn't be possible, if they kept on their own.
Again this is pretty uncommon.
There seem to be other "rules". While they switch partner each year, a relatively high percentage of 15% mates again next year. The tentative explanation is, that partners wait A CERTAIN TIME for each other, but if partner don't show, they mate with someone else since time is so short...
I find that rather ... extraordinary.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 08:20 PM |
|
|
Having a "serious need" for something and not having it is not evidence that its existence in another species is due to non-genetics factors. (Hmmm... that's a lot of negatives.)
Having sharp teeth and talons would be useful to humans, but they don't have them. (More realistically, being able to synthesize all of my own amino acids would be useful, but I don't have it.)
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 08:21 PM |
|
|
Because my friend the term 'good' varies from one person to the next  . Whereas the code of honor binds people to a commom 'good'.
(IMHO)
As i said that this isn't perfect, it is simply better (considerebly from my point of view).
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 08:26 PM |
|
|
But the common good isn't any clearer than the term good. The term "common" really doensn't make it any easier to grasp than just the idea of good. But ok lets just drop this here.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 08:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Can we all agree that our neurophysiology, which makes assessments of "good" and "evil" possible, is determined through genetics?
Well, we certainly all agree that our hands and they way they are designed have made our advance as a species possible, and that's determined through genetics for sure.
So isn't that a point that doesn't say anything at all?
I would rather ask the question:
Is the concept of good and evil necessary for survival?
I point to the penguins. Either they have the concept as well or it's not needed.
Does the concept of good and evil SUPPORT survival? I point to, umm, everything that supports survival - fire (heating), the wheel, mathematics, medicine, stone working - will we claim genetic reasons for supportive things as well?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 08:31 PM |
|
|
I meant honor being the basis of the common good.
But, we clearly over-stretched this more then it is necessary.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 21, 2011 08:51 PM |
|
|
"Good" a mutation of "beneficial for the plural"
"Evil" a mutation of "unbeneficial for the plural"
Beneficial is either "surplus of something that is not bad/decent/etc", or something you gain which under the same terms as surplus here. It can also be not losing somethat that you need, or not losing something that gives you a advantage.
It can be something that is relativ to what you are doing, and that relativ loses some its ability to compete with your thing. Be it dating, forging, tactics, manpower, or spiritual concepts taught.
Plural means more than 1, for the viewer. One should note that the viewer also note himself as "me, and myself", so anything is unbeneficial to the viewer will be viewed as "evil". Lots of people benefit from your doom? Their evil, even if their actions does not even intend to harm you in the first place.
Another thing about the "plural" is that the "next potential person to receive the concept" is also counted. A murderer murders a person? He is evil because there may be a next victim.
A person murdering someone in self defense? No more victims there, because it was spawned by rare circumstances, hence there is only 1 victim, and 1 is not plural.
The exact definition of "good" and "evil" varies a lot between languages. And since language is a large metaconcept, explaining it is just pointing towards more words until you finally have gotten around and created a loop.
However, a language mutates along with its culture, meaning 2 different places under the same culture will after long enough share the same meaning of certain words.
Good and evil is 2 such words, both which have specific implications under Christianity, which have taken hold over the western world, and a bit beyond. "Good" is the opposite of its counterpart, "Evil", and "evil" is true suffering. You also have a devil in some interpretations, which purpose is to be evil for the sake of evil, for he is there to cause pure suffering.
And how does one spot this? Compare Christianity to the pagans before they where annexed, other religions, other folktales, and a lot more.
For example: In the sagas, the myth about the death of Balder did not turn into a complete snowization until Christianity was widespread, the earlier versions are much less "Balder is the light, Loki is evil" and more "For snow and giggles".
Even the easts definition of Good and Evil is a waist amount different.
____________
|
| |
|
|
