Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

[Damorobo]

Is the good/evil dichotomous model of morality a valid one?

In general, it seems that we have a tendency to regard moral action as residing in a point on a single morality spectrum. At one end of the spectrum we have Good and on the other end we have Evil. Under this model, it is sometimes difficult to place a moral action in a fixed position on this moral spectrum. For example, a psychopathic serial killer who kills only other murderers and violent criminals (like Dexter). In one sense these killings are Good as they have prevented future murders or violent acts but the they can also be seen as Evil since they were committed in cold blood.

A second problem with this model is that it suggests that if a moral action is considered 'less' Good then it is also 'more' Evil. So, donating £1 to charity is not only less Good than donating £2, but it is also more Evil. This seems absurd.

To overcome these problems I think Good and Evil actions should be conceptually unrelated. Therefore, I think it is more accurate to say that all moral actions exist within a two-dimensional orthogonal model. In one dimension there is Good, in the other there is Evil. Under this model a moral action can be both Good and Evil without creating a contradiction. Also an action can be less Good without being more Evil.

Furthermore, we should define Good actions as actions that bring about happiness/wellbeing in sentient creatures and Evil actions as actions that bring about pain/suffering in sentient creatures.

Do you think this two-dimensional model of morality is a more accurate way to regard moral action than the standard one-dimension model of morality?

[Ascendant606]

I do think it is more accurate than the standard model, but its not quite perfect either. In all reality, all good is evil and all evil is good. They are just different perspectives of the same thing, so there can be no balance like some say because it is all the same.

For example, if a person dropped a piece of food on the ground and walked away, you could say it was an "evil" action because people could step on it and it is unsightly. You could also say it was a "good" action though because it provided a food source to the local organisms. This goes for anything, so I believe that you can't really have a model of good and evil because they are the same thing, only different to people who see things in different ways.

It is my opinion that good actions are ones that as you said, "bring about happiness/ well being in sentient creatures". My only elaboration on that would be to say that good actions are ones that match with the majority of people's perspective on what is right and good. For when talking of "good" actions, it is not one person's perspective on what is good and right but rather what is the majority's perspective on good and right. That is why although psychopath's and criminal's may view their actions as good, they still go to jail because the majority of people do not think killing and stealing is good.

[Damorobo]

Hi Ascendant,

For example, if a person dropped a piece of food on the ground and walked away, you could say it was an "evil" action because people could step on it and it is unsightly. You could also say it was a "good" action though because it provided a food source to the local organisms. This goes for anything, so I believe that you can't really have a model of good and evil because they are the same thing, only different to people who see things in different ways.

I agree. I was trying to get across that any moral action can be separately, yet simultaneously, be 'scored' on a Good dimension as well as an Evil dimension.

Also, whilst I do agree with you that the majority has some say in what is considered right and wrong. I was coming from a more objective approach. I think that our moral actions should be driven by the goals of promoting happiness and reducing pain and the morality of the majority should have less of an influence on our moral choices.

[Ascendant606]

Hi Ascendant,

Also, whilst I do agree with you that the majority has some say in what is considered right and wrong. I was coming from a more objective approach. I think that our moral actions should be driven by the goals of promoting happiness and reducing pain and the morality of the majority should have less of an influence on our moral choices.

hmm... I think see what you mean. For instance, if we were ruled by an oppressive force that promoted unhappiness and overtime were raised to be subservient, even though the majority might feel its best to keep their head down and be subservient it wouldn't be the "good" moral choice. Correct?

[Namthebabe]

Good and evil don't exist.

[Alias]

How about a three-dimensional value system, in which every act can be judged by all the relevant criteria: How good or bad is it for the individual? How much harm or benefit to society? How much damage or help to the environment? How constructive or destructive to the future of the species, the planet? How many people are offended and pleased by it? Does it contribute to anarchy or order? Does it promote or hamper world peace? How far do the ripples spread?

Actually, that's exactly how we do judge every act, even though we're probably unaware of every factor we consider. At the extreme ends of the Good-evil spectrum, most people have a simple, immediate reaction: That's wrong! or How noble! In the middle, there is more shading, more hesitation. But we generally arrive at a conclusion, each according to who and what has informed our value system. It's never going to be objective or unambiguous, unanimous or constant.

[Sayso]

Despite the fact that all concrete things may be both good, in some respects, and evil in others, the designations themselves may be pure and unmixed. That certain particular events or actions are good, and that others are evil, are facts about which most people attain the highest degree of felt certainty. That certainty would be one measure of the unmixed nature of the two concepts.

[Alias]

I think you need to be careful of the word "evil".
The dichotomy is usually good-bad, which are equals, like harmful-beneficial, in language and in mundane activities.
I don't know of a term for the opposite of "evil" that is not overtly religious.
"Evil", however, is used in circumstances and by persons who have no supernatural reference-points.
While we may have a strong and widely-shared sense of what evil is, and which kinds of acts qualify for the term, I don't think we have a common understanding for the extreme end of the beneficial/good spectrum might be. I'm not sure what that says about us a species.

[Sayso]

I don't agree about the terminology. We have a stronger term for the worst of the bad because life is an endurance. It has no natural temporal limit. It goes on and on, and what fosters it and enhances it--the good--goes on and on, hopefully. What destroys it, which is the essential evil--becomes complete with death. Evil can culminate, while good just sustains.

Beyond that, I think we suffer, culturally, from systemic failure to acknowledge the good. Actual, everyday good actions and events, etc., often are completely lacking in drama.

It may be that our over-emphasis on the famous is a displaced passion for "good."

[Spectrum]

I have been asserting Islam [in part] is inherently evil [in a range of degrees].

Like all ideas and concepts, 'good' or 'evil' can only exist within a Framework and System with its defined terms and assumptions.
I believe Good versus Evil is a very effective valid dichotomy for a Moral Framework and System. However we also have effective definition for what is 'good' and 'evil.'

'Good' is defined as any thing, act or intentions if practiced by ALL humans will produce a net-positive resultant that promote the well being and preservation of the human species.
'Evil' [antithesis of good] is defined as any thing, act or intentions if practiced by ALL humans will produce a net-negative resultant to the well being and exterminate of the human species.

What is 'good' or 'evil' come in degrees from 1/100-Low to 100/100-high and will result in its corresponding degree of its resultant.

To ensure the effectiveness of the Framework and System there must be a detailed 'taxanomy' of what is good and what is evil with a display of the various degrees.

For example 'genocide' is 99.9% evil if practiced by all humans will exterminate the human species.
Petty stealing, lying, cheating, and the likes would be say 5% evil. On a net-negative basis this will correspond to a 5% potentiality to exterminate the human species.
We can then fill in the rest [at least roughly then refine it later] in between.

Note the popularity of the concept of evil in the philosophical community at present.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/
'Bad' and other terms of the likes are just not sufficient to cover the terrible evils and violence that we are facing into the future.

[LuckyR]

Good and evil are not like hot and cold, rather like beautiful and ugly, that is, subject to everyone's interpretation.

[Steve3007]

Regarding the OP. The idea of placing good and evil onto orthogonal axes in a two dimensional space is interesting. But one disadvantage that springs to mind is when we consider our main reason for wanting to analyse the morality of various potential actions: to work out what to do for the best.

Decisions are often binary. To act or not to act. That is (often) the question. The advantage of the one dimensional model in which evil is the negative of good is that, in theory at least, it yields a "go/no-go" decision. With the two dimensional model the correct decision is not so clear. If we decide to act when the position on the good axis is greater than the position on the evil axis then we might as well just stick to one dimension and act when the single (good - evil) value is greater than zero. But if we don't do that, what do we do? How do we put our graph to good use? Is it intended to be used for decision-making or is it just intended to be descriptive?

-- Updated Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:12 pm to add the following --

LuckyR:

Good and evil are not like hot and cold, rather like beautiful and ugly, that is, subject to everyone's interpretation.

This can't be completely true because we don't use the terms "good" and "evil" in the same way that we use the terms "beautiful" and "ugly". Almost nobody believes that good and evil are purely a matter of personal taste. It is rare to find somebody who believes that good is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Most people assert that a given action is good or evil as a matter of fact, not as an expression of their personal taste. I don't know of many people who would say "I'm not very keen on Hitler's death camps, but, still, it takes all sorts I suppose."

[Wayne92587]

Is the good/evil dichotomous model of morality a valid one?

NO???

Moral Law, as in speaking of, giving a name, a number, an Identity, to a Singularity that is not readily apparent, having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical of Zero-0 is Lunacy, the cause of Evil, Insanity, results in Chaos, is the "Greatest Cause of All Suffering, all Unnecessary Suffering.

Moral Law is a dismal failure in its attempt to bring order to the chaos.

As Lao Tse would say, these two being of the same source are the same.

Would that I could I would destroy Moral Law, Self-ish Righteousness, and replace it with the "Rule of Law."

These two are the same, the two represent Moral Law, Righteousness, are the Same; Good not existing without the existence of Wrong; Wrong not existing without the existence of Good.

As above so below, as below so above.

If that which below becomes greater than that which is above, as a Fractal, said Fraction is none less than a Real number.
If that which is above becomes greater than that which is below, as a fractal, said fraction becomes an "Irrational number."

[LuckyR]

LuckyR:

Good and evil are not like hot and cold, rather like beautiful and ugly, that is, subject to everyone's interpretation.

This can't be completely true because we don't use the terms "good" and "evil" in the same way that we use the terms "beautiful" and "ugly". Almost nobody believes that good and evil are purely a matter of personal taste. It is rare to find somebody who believes that good is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Most people assert that a given action is good or evil as a matter of fact, not as an expression of their personal taste. I don't know of many people who would say "I'm not very keen on Hitler's death camps, but, still, it takes all sorts I suppose."

Actually completely true. Your inability to find a citizen who believes "good" is in the eye of the beholder is because citizens don't think about it much in day to day existence. And if you don't think there are those who fault Hitler for not going farther than he did, then you are new to the Internet.

[Steve3007]

LuckyR:
I don't doubt that there are plenty of people who admire Hitler and think that he did a good thing. That wasn't my point. My point was about people's views of the difference between tastes and moral values. It is rare for people to think that the question of whether Hitler's actions were good or bad is merely a matter of personal taste, like the question of whether a particular object is beautiful or whether Marmite tastes nice. As I said, people sometimes disagree as to what is good and what is evil, but they usually do agree that whatever it is, it is not merely a matter of taste.