What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 1514
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by JackDaydream »

The question which I am raising may appear to be a moral, or even religious one. However, I am asking it as a metaphysical question because that appears to me to be the underlying issue.

In religious perspectives, especially the theist ones, including the Judaeo- Christian tradition, good and evil are seen as metaphysical realities, locked in battle, as God and Satan, or the devil. Yet, within Christian theology there are problems regarding this. In particular, there was the doctrine of the privation boni, which views evil as the mere absence of good. But, this is open to question. Carl Jung, in his understanding of evil, argued that the idea of the privatio boni denied the reality of the power oe force of evil.

Good and evil may be seen in the context of duality or as the general interplay of the two. Such an emphasis on the complexity of the interaction between the two is captured in the idea of the Tao. However, there is still the issue as to whether good and evil exist objectively, or are the constructions of human thought and reasoning.

Kant and Plato saw human morality as based on independent metaphysics realities beyond the human mind. Moral relativists see the human construction of values. Nietzsche spoke of going 'beyond good and evil', which was based on his critique of values within Christianity.

I am thinking about the foundation for the concepts of good and evil. My own position is that even though good and evil are constructed relatively, there is likely to be some kind of inherent realities behind this, but I do get a little unsure how this figures completely. In a way, the independence of ideas is like qualia, but different because with colours or sounds, for example, the awareness is based on sensory perceptions. With ideas, especially good and evil, it is formed on judgments about human experiences. The suffering of war, poverty and killing are the basis for moral ideas and values. But, the underlying evaluations are based on ideas in the human mind and thought. The oncepts may have developed in consciousness and culture but do the actual concepts of good and evil exist as independent realities?
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 142
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Contact:

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by Angelo Cannata »

JackDaydream wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:16 am do the actual concepts of good and evil exist as independent realities?
How can anything exist an independent reality, since the very idea of independent reality cannot be figured by us but as a human construction?
We might imagine that perhaps our ideas are based on something external to our mind. But, again, the very idea of “being external to our mind” is for sure a human construction. Why should things obey to our human mental constructions? If something independent exists, we humans have no way of thinking about it without bending, distorting, changing all aspects of it to adapt them to our mentality. This means that we have absolutely no way even to just imagine anything independent from our way to conceive it, because both the independent object and the very idea of “independent” cannot be thought by us without making them totally adapted, modified, changed by our mentality.
So, we can realize that actually it is absolutely impossible to us human to talk and to think about things independent from us, because the very action of referring to something external to us is already a concept entirely built and shaped by our mentality. When we think that we are thinking about something external to us, actually we are still entirely inside our minds and its structures. We are “brains in a vat”, the vat is our brain itself.
Even if we try to apply this criticism to itself, by noticing that, as a consequence, all that I have said is a human construction, this doesn’t open any new window: it becomes just a meta-reflection that confirms our being closed inside ourselves.

In other words: it is impossible to think without using our brain. This seems an extremely simple and obvious fact, but actually it contains a lot of criticism against a lot of ideas of us. We have no way to exist without our brain, because the very idea of existence is already created by our brain. When we see a dead body, we might think “There it is: a body existing without a brain”, but this way we forget that the whole phenomenon is mastered, interpreted by us, by our brain, so, there is still a situation where a brain is mastering and interpreting everything.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 1514
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by JackDaydream »

JackDaydream wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:16 am The question which I am raising may appear to be a moral, or even religious one. However, I am asking it as a metaphysical question because that appears to me to be the underlying issue.

In religious perspectives, especially the theist ones, including the Judaeo- Christian tradition, good and evil are seen as metaphysical realities, locked in battle, as God and Satan, or the devil. Yet, within Christian theology there are problems regarding this. In particular, there was the doctrine of the privation boni, which views evil as the mere absence of good. But, this is open to question. Carl Jung, in his understanding of evil, argued that the idea of the privatio boni denied the reality of the power oe force of evil.

Good and evil may be seen in the context of duality or as the general interplay of the two. Such an emphasis on the complexity of the interaction between the two is captured in the idea of the Tao. However, there is still the issue as to whether good and evil exist objectively, or are the constructions of human thought and reasoning.

Kant and Plato saw human morality as based on independent metaphysics realities beyond the human mind. Moral relativists see the human construction of values. Nietzsche spoke of going 'beyond good and evil', which was based on his critique of values within Christianity.

I am thinking about the foundation for the concepts of good and evil. My own position is that even though good and evil are constructed relatively, there is likely to be some kind of inherent realities behind this, but I do get a little unsure how this figures completely. In a way, the independence of ideas is like qualia, but different because with colours or sounds, for example, the awareness is based on sensory perceptions. With ideas, especially good and evil, it is formed on judgments about human experiences. The suffering of war, poverty and killing are the basis for moral ideas and values. But, the underlying evaluations are based on ideas in the human mind and thought. The oncepts may have developed in consciousness and culture but do the actual concepts of good and evil exist as independent realities?
The problem is that as human beings the only basis for knowledge is as it appears to the human mind. This leads to a possibility that all concepts are a product of human consciousness. It is hard to know what exists beyond human constructions of meanings and ideas because it is not possible to step outside of this, and even the subjective constructions. However, on the other hand, it may be that this leads to some kind of assumptions that concepts, such as good and evil can be reduced to the human constructs, as if human beings invented this aspect of reality. Certainly, the ideas of reality are imminent aspects of cultural and individual development. However, it does not mean necessarilyy that they can be reduced to the human mind entirely.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 1514
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by JackDaydream »

It has occurred to me that people may think that the question which I am asking is whether God and the devil exist. I am not trying to ask that. It may be the other way round, that human beings created the concepts of good and evil in order to make sense of these realities. Perhaps, in the twentieth century, human beings don't see good and evil in such a mysterious way as in earlier periods in history. The particular sources of good and evil, ranging from natural disasters to personal misfortunes and good fortune have been demystified. This may mean that good and evil are seen more as subjective interpretations of both experiences and morality.
heracleitos
Posts: 183
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by heracleitos »

JackDaydream wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:16 am In religious perspectives, especially the theist ones, including the Judaeo- Christian tradition, good and evil are seen as metaphysical realities, locked in battle, as God and Satan, or the devil.
I don't believe that they are locked in battle.

The expansion of the universe automatically led to a phenomenon that seeks to undo it, and which makes use of the same laws as the expansion itself.
JackDaydream wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:16 am do the actual concepts of good and evil exist as independent realities?
Yes.

The preservation law reflects the work of underlying good while entropy reflects underlying evil.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 1514
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by JackDaydream »

heracleitos wrote: May 20th, 2022, 8:04 pm
JackDaydream wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:16 am In religious perspectives, especially the theist ones, including the Judaeo- Christian tradition, good and evil are seen as metaphysical realities, locked in battle, as God and Satan, or the devil.
I don't believe that they are locked in battle.

The expansion of the universe automatically led to a phenomenon that seeks to undo it, and which makes use of the same laws as the expansion itself.
JackDaydream wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:16 am do the actual concepts of good and evil exist as independent realities?
Yes.

The preservation law reflects the work of underlying good while entropy reflects underlying evil.
Your point about the preservation and the law of entropy does show where the issue of seeing good and evil as mere constructs of the human mind. The concepts could be changed to some other qualities in naming, such as positive and negative, but the issue would be the same. The idea of survival of the fitness indicates an underlying gravitation of the quality of 'goodness', even though it is so different from previous conceptions of good and evil. It does suggest an underlying process of sorting order from disorder with some inherent emphasis on goodness. Disorder and 'evil' exist but with a basic tendency for the lesser 'good' aspects to decay and be eliminated in the process.
heracleitos
Posts: 183
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by heracleitos »

JackDaydream wrote: May 20th, 2022, 8:46 pm It does suggest an underlying process of sorting order from disorder with some inherent emphasis on goodness. Disorder and 'evil' exist but with a basic tendency for the lesser 'good' aspects to decay and be eliminated in the process.
I think that disorder and chaos are largely unrelated to evil.

If the Theory of Universe contains Robinson's Q fragment of Arithmetic Theory, then the physical multiverse that interprets it, will contain Godelian facts. These facts cannot be predicted from their theory,i.e. they are true but unprovable. Therefore, the physical multiverse will largely be unpredictable.

The Godelian phenomenon is in my opinion unrelated to entropy. It would also occur in a static universe that does not expand. Entropy ("evil"), however, is a side effect of the universe's expansion, which aims to undo the expansion.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 1514
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by JackDaydream »

heracleitos wrote: May 20th, 2022, 9:39 pm
JackDaydream wrote: May 20th, 2022, 8:46 pm It does suggest an underlying process of sorting order from disorder with some inherent emphasis on goodness. Disorder and 'evil' exist but with a basic tendency for the lesser 'good' aspects to decay and be eliminated in the process.
I think that disorder and chaos are largely unrelated to evil.

If the Theory of Universe contains Robinson's Q fragment of Arithmetic Theory, then the physical multiverse that interprets it, will contain Godelian facts. These facts cannot be predicted from their theory,i.e. they are true but unprovable. Therefore, the physical multiverse will largely be unpredictable.

The Godelian phenomenon is in my opinion unrelated to entropy. It would also occur in a static universe that does not expand. Entropy ("evil"), however, is a side effect of the universe's expansion, which aims to undo the expansion.

I am sure that you are correct about entropy but not disorder being a side-effect of expansion. That is because I am particularly familiar with the particular theories you are describing.

I wonder if, generally, evil, could be seen as a side-effect of the processes of life. In particular, it may not be possible for good to exist without the opposite. The pragmatic aspect of this is that it is not possible for beings to live without dying. Freud speaks the life and death instincts as Eros and Thanatos. I am not suggesting that death is identical with evil. It is more that the outcomes of what is seen as evil often result in death. However, it could be said that death is the release from experience of suffering.
heracleitos
Posts: 183
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by heracleitos »

JackDaydream wrote: May 21st, 2022, 4:20 am I am sure that you are correct about entropy but not disorder being a side-effect of expansion. That is because I am particularly familiar with the particular theories you are describing.
Entropy and (fundamental) randomness seem to be two different things. Still, it is actually easy to confuse them because they operate simultaneously on the same physical universe.
JackDaydream wrote: May 21st, 2022, 4:20 am I wonder if, generally, evil, could be seen as a side-effect of the processes of life. In particular, it may not be possible for good to exist without the opposite. The pragmatic aspect of this is that it is not possible for beings to live without dying.
I think that matter does not even need to be alive to be eventually destroyed. For example, a solar system comes into existence and after its lifecycle, it disappears again. Every single thing in existence in the universe seems to have a lifecycle; not just living things.

Concerning life, I think that it is another process altogether. The reason why believe that life exists, is entirely conjectural. There is no theory that supports the process that I believe that life is part of.

I think that the universe consists of large gravity fields that spawn smaller gravity fields, which spawn smaller gravity fields, and so on. At some point in the spawning process, when the resulting gravity fields are small enough, the virtual pair production of the void, which finds itself "irritated" by these gravity fields, will manage to undo their effect by bombarding and covering them in matter-energy. Really small gravity fields such as the earth will still manage to spawn a child (the moon), but the child itself will be too small and won't be able to spawn again. All these celestial gravity fields spawn also microscopically small gravity fields. If the conditions are right, a microscopically small gravity field can get captured by a specifically biologically produced structure of matter-energy. At that point, it does not become a celestial body but a living being. In that sense, I believe that living beings are somehow of the same nature as celestial bodies: a gravity field covered by matter-energy.

None of that would exist, if the void did not attack these gravity fields by bombarding and covering them with matter-energy through virtual pair production. So, yes, entropy, i.e. destruction of structure, is essential to life, i.e. the structure itself.

Furthermore, if the conditions on the surface of a celestial body (such as the earth) are right, life will automatically appear, because any celestial body always produces small gravity fields anyway. Well, that is what I believe. I think that the sun and the moon do that too. It is just that the conditions on their surface are not right for these micro gravity fields to power living beings.

I think that a version of a living being born from a microscopically small gravity field of the moon may be different from the ones born from earth. It would be interesting to test this hypothesis by trying to see how a pregnancy incurred on the moon would evolve. I think that the child will be quite different. Of course, it is impossible to say in what sense it would be different, without trying it out.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 1514
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by JackDaydream »

heracleitos wrote: May 21st, 2022, 7:57 am
JackDaydream wrote: May 21st, 2022, 4:20 am I am sure that you are correct about entropy but not disorder being a side-effect of expansion. That is because I am particularly familiar with the particular theories you are describing.
Entropy and (fundamental) randomness seem to be two different things. Still, it is actually easy to confuse them because they operate simultaneously on the same physical universe.
JackDaydream wrote: May 21st, 2022, 4:20 am I wonder if, generally, evil, could be seen as a side-effect of the processes of life. In particular, it may not be possible for good to exist without the opposite. The pragmatic aspect of this is that it is not possible for beings to live without dying.
I think that matter does not even need to be alive to be eventually destroyed. For example, a solar system comes into existence and after its lifecycle, it disappears again. Every single thing in existence in the universe seems to have a lifecycle; not just living things.

Concerning life, I think that it is another process altogether. The reason why believe that life exists, is entirely conjectural. There is no theory that supports the process that I believe that life is part of.

I think that the universe consists of large gravity fields that spawn smaller gravity fields, which spawn smaller gravity fields, and so on. At some point in the spawning process, when the resulting gravity fields are small enough, the virtual pair production of the void, which finds itself "irritated" by these gravity fields, will manage to undo their effect by bombarding and covering them in matter-energy. Really small gravity fields such as the earth will still manage to spawn a child (the moon), but the child itself will be too small and won't be able to spawn again. All these celestial gravity fields spawn also microscopically small gravity fields. If the conditions are right, a microscopically small gravity field can get captured by a specifically biologically produced structure of matter-energy. At that point, it does not become a celestial body but a living being. In that sense, I believe that living beings are somehow of the same nature as celestial bodies: a gravity field covered by matter-energy.

None of that would exist, if the void did not attack these gravity fields by bombarding and covering them with matter-energy through virtual pair production. So, yes, entropy, i.e. destruction of structure, is essential to life, i.e. the structure itself.

Furthermore, if the conditions on the surface of a celestial body (such as the earth) are right, life will automatically appear, because any celestial body always produces small gravity fields anyway. Well, that is what I believe. I think that the sun and the moon do that too. It is just that the conditions on their surface are not right for these micro gravity fields to power living beings.

I think that a version of a living being born from a microscopically small gravity field of the moon may be different from the ones born from earth. It would be interesting to test this hypothesis by trying to see how a pregnancy incurred on the moon would evolve. I think that the child will be quite different. Of course, it is impossible to say in what sense it would be different, without trying it out.
The issue why life exists in the first place is very complex. The nature of opposites seems to bring it forth and destroy, probably in circles. It is possible to ask why did opposites or qualities emerge in the first place. Even mind and matter is the basic division.

With the theory you put forward it may have many aspects which are correct, but, even then, it is a model. It is difficult to trace the beginning of causation. The opposites can be seen as qualia to a large extent because they are representations in the mind. As an essential dual pair good and evil are ways of thinking about opposition as a dialectic. It is hard to know if metaphysical theories of good and evil or the scientific accounts are the most accurate explanations. All of the ideas are dependent on human consciousness and have been seen in such different ways in specific geographical and historical contexts. Frazer' 'The Golden Bough', which is a classical anthropological text describes the progression of human thought through the stages of magic, religion and science. These three approaches draw such differing conclusions as models which explain the essential divisions involved in the universe.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4251
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

JackDaydream wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:16 am Good and evil may be seen in the context of duality or as the general interplay of the two. Such an emphasis on the complexity of the interaction between the two is captured in the idea of the Tao. However, there is still the issue as to whether good and evil exist objectively, or are the constructions of human thought and reasoning.
I think that if I classify something as 'good', I'm doing a very similar thing to when I classify something as green. I am stating the results of a judgement I have made. In the case of 'green', we could say I am just describing, presumably accurately, what I see, while 'good' is a value judgement. But both are judgements, and 'green' and 'good' express those judgements in language.

My thought would be that good and evil "exist objectively" in exactly the same sense that green exists objectively. Not more; not less. I'm not sure that any such things can be helpfully seen as objectively existent.

🤔🤔🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 1514
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by JackDaydream »

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 21st, 2022, 9:11 am
JackDaydream wrote: May 18th, 2022, 9:16 am Good and evil may be seen in the context of duality or as the general interplay of the two. Such an emphasis on the complexity of the interaction between the two is captured in the idea of the Tao. However, there is still the issue as to whether good and evil exist objectively, or are the constructions of human thought and reasoning.
I think that if I classify something as 'good', I'm doing a very similar thing to when I classify something as green. I am stating the results of a judgement I have made. In the case of 'green', we could say I am just describing, presumably accurately, what I see, while 'good' is a value judgement. But both are judgements, and 'green' and 'good' express those judgements in language.

My thought would be that good and evil "exist objectively" in exactly the same sense that green exists objectively. Not more; not less. I'm not sure that any such things can be helpfully seen as objectively existent.

🤔🤔🤔
The difference between green and goodness, while both are constructed in the human mind is that green can be pointed to or be shown in the external world whereas goodness cannot. Going back to Plato's ideas, such ideas were seen as existing as archetypes, or Forms. Similarly, Kant suggested that ideas about what is good could be derived from a priori reason.

However, I think that the climate of thought in the twentieth and twentieth first century has changed so dramatically. This is connected to the deconstruction of meaning, especially in postmodernism, as well as the growth of cultural and moral relativism.

The differences between the philosophy of the current era, in general, is so strikingly different. I am inclined to the view that both perspectives, in relation to the existence of good and evil are both important, and can possibly be put together. That would involve being able to see the way in which ideas are based on social and individual meanings. However, it would not be about ruling out the perspectives of Plato and Kant, even though it is hard to demonstrate such ideas empirically. The closest it is possible to get to such demonstration would be about certain aspects of universality, such as shared aspects of values, including the experience of hunger, thirst and pain, as an overall component of evil for sentient beings.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4251
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

I just can't get past the realisation that good and evil are simple value-judgements, and nothing more. They aren't 'things'. They aren't even usefully meaningful until you add context, at least by defining the person, place, or thing that is 'good' or 'bad'. It all comes down to the simple question, "Good for who/what?".

Just my two pennyworth. 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 1514
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by JackDaydream »

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:09 am I just can't get past the realisation that good and evil are simple value-judgements, and nothing more. They aren't 'things'. They aren't even usefully meaningful until you add context, at least by defining the person, place, or thing that is 'good' or 'bad'. It all comes down to the simple question, "Good for who/what?".

Just my two pennyworth. 😉
I do struggle with the idea of good and evil as being mere value judgements, which is probably what led me to write the thread. Until a few years ago, I did cling onto the idea of there being some kind of cosmic battle between good and evil, and when I used to read the Biblical 'Book of Revelation', was at the centre of this. It was actually Jung's discussion on this which got me thinking about the relativity of good and evil and the psychological aspects.

Definitely, the issue of certain events or aspects of experience being good or evil involves the question of who is something good for? All events and circumstances can have certain benefits or consequences for different people. Part of my own approach is trying to turn apparently 'bad' fortune into good fortune on an individual level. For example, when I had a broken wrist I tried to make such use of the time in whi I could not do much, by reading, of course. But, I am sure that bad events can be turned into some potentially good ones on a much wider level, like when some disaster in the world gives rise to a new charity or project.

The underlying criteria on which I categorise good or evil is the extent of suffering or happiness experienced. But, this is probably tied up with some kind of utilitarian or consequentialist philosophy, although I would not say this is about numbers of people. A certain act may be regarded as a form of evil if it ruins one person's life rather than simply causing inconvenience to a large number. However, it is hard to measure evil, or good, because there is such a subjective experience of them, and the interplay.

Also, the issue of good and evil is connected to morality but not simply about morals or ethics. It is the whole nature of the experience of the two and the naming of the two subjectively and, possibly objectively. It would be questionable if someone viewed evil as good, although it is possible for certain individuals to interpret certain experiences such as murder as good. This may be at the core of what is considered as a psychopathic personality.

In thinking about this, it is hard not to make judgements about human motivation and intentions, making it difficult to see good and evil as mere consequences rather than at the heart of human life and psychology. A person may experience evil or good in the form of effects in experiences or may contribute to this in acts and words, which gets into the moral aspects arising from thought and intentions.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 4251
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: What Do The Concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' Represent?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:09 am I just can't get past the realisation that good and evil are simple value-judgements, and nothing more. They aren't 'things'. They aren't even usefully meaningful until you add context, at least by defining the person, place, or thing that is 'good' or 'bad'. It all comes down to the simple question, "Good for who/what?".
JackDaydream wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:56 am I do struggle with the idea of good and evil as being mere value judgements, which is probably what led me to write the thread. Until a few years ago, I did cling onto the idea of there being some kind of cosmic battle between good and evil...
A battle between good and evil? But good has no hands to place the nerve agent into the water supply of your local children's hospital, and evil has no fingers to press the button, and send nuclear missiles flying toward your home country. Good and evil are not things that are able to fight, or to take any action, of any sort.

To the extent that good and evil are causes for which humans might fight, there could be a fight between those who fight for good, and those who fight for evil, which is, of course, what is meant. So why do we personalise these simple judgements? Why do we give them apparent personalities, which can struggle with each other for control of your world?

Good and evil are fence-posts, bounding a spectrum that reaches good and evil at its extremes. [This spectrum could well be multidimensional.] All of the practically-useful points on this spectrum are well away from the extremes. Even in this, good and evil are less informative than the yin-yang sign, that shows a tiny bit of black within the white, and a tiny bit of white within the black, as a reminder. The pure extremes are rarely, if ever, seen.


JackDaydream wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:56 am Definitely, the issue of certain events or aspects of experience being good or evil involves the question of who is something good for?
Exactly. And this is so arbitrary-seeming that the very concepts (of good and evil) seem to blur and fade. A particular thing might be judged 'good' for you and your family, but 'evil' for your next-door neighbours. Something else might be 'evil' for the men who play for your team, but 'good' for the children who attend your local nursery. Yet another thing might be 'good' for the (human) people of your country, but 'evil' for the animals, plants, fungi and bacteria of that same country.

Can there really be such things as good and evil when the meanings they carry vary so much, in every way? Something could even be 'good' today, and equally 'evil' tomorrow! What value (to humans or otherwise) does such a perspective bring with it? As this is a pure value judgement, I offer you the meta-question: are 'good' and 'evil' good, or evil?


JackDaydream wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:56 am All events and circumstances can have certain benefits or consequences for different people. Part of my own approach is trying to turn apparently 'bad' fortune into good fortune on an individual level. For example, when I had a broken wrist I tried to make such use of the time in which I could not do much...
So you were not preoccupied with arbitrarily assigning 'good' or 'evil' to your plight. You accepted what had happened, and acted so as to minimise any unwanted effects on yourself, while maximising any desirable effects. This is what any intelligent creature would do, surely? And what does it have to do with 'good' and 'evil'? Nothing that I can see.


JackDaydream wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:56 am The underlying criteria on which I categorise good or evil is the extent of suffering or happiness experienced.
People express many different definitions for 'good' and 'evil', and none of them (that I know of) cover all the uses to which 'good' and 'evil' are put (by humans). My dogs have a basic understanding of fairness and justice, but apparently no understanding of, or use for, 'good' and 'evil'. They accept what happens in the world, which they cannot control, and make the best of it. Why are humans not as intelligent as this, I wonder?

"Good" is not a thing, it's an opinion, normally personal. When I say "it's good", I mean that it is something beneficial to me. Rarely, I might add qualification, to make it clear I'm aiming my judgement at something else: "that's good for the environment".

"Good" and "evil" are used as simple amplifiers in our speech (and writing), like "f*ck" or "bl00dy". They carry no meaning, other than to say that we approve or disapprove of a particular thing.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021