My definition is good is whatever is positive to your morals. Evil is what's negative to your morals.
What's your definition of good and evil
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dexter is good, but GLaDOS is evil. They both work for the greater good(THE GREATER GOOD) but one only really cares about the harmful actions the other has genuine care for others.
Good: Whatever gives an overall positive benefit to the health and wellbeing of the human race.
Evil: ..Well, exactly the opposite of that.
Evil: ..Well, exactly the opposite of that.
Good is whatever makes it so that overall more people are enjoying life at the end of the day.
Evil is when for some reason or rather people let something else get in the way of bringing joy or enjoying something, its also when people take joy away from people.
In short, good is what pluses to the joy of everyone where as evil is what minuses from it.
Of course it really depends on my mood, or general mindset at the time for example tommorow I might say it depends on overall intentions or something more goody goody important, I consider good and evil half baked concepts, or rather over baked concepts that have much to wide a definition.
Evil is when for some reason or rather people let something else get in the way of bringing joy or enjoying something, its also when people take joy away from people.
In short, good is what pluses to the joy of everyone where as evil is what minuses from it.
Of course it really depends on my mood, or general mindset at the time for example tommorow I might say it depends on overall intentions or something more goody goody important, I consider good and evil half baked concepts, or rather over baked concepts that have much to wide a definition.
Evil: Me.
Good: Something I created just so there would be conflict so people would suffer. In other words, a tool.
Good: Something I created just so there would be conflict so people would suffer. In other words, a tool.
Good is the absence of evil, and Evil is absence of good. One only exists because of the other. So therefore, one might say Good causes Evil, and vice versa.
If Good causes Evil, then is it really good?
Then again, these are simply titles we give actions so we can categorize who we agree and disagree with. For example, if a radical terrorist bombs a US convoy, he and/or her mindset is that they are doing Good work in the name of their people, God, country, etc. We view as evil because our men and women are dying, even despite the fact that we are invading their homeland.
Perception is the greatest evil, as it falls to the eyes of the beholder to what should be Good or Evil.
If Good causes Evil, then is it really good?
Then again, these are simply titles we give actions so we can categorize who we agree and disagree with. For example, if a radical terrorist bombs a US convoy, he and/or her mindset is that they are doing Good work in the name of their people, God, country, etc. We view as evil because our men and women are dying, even despite the fact that we are invading their homeland.
Perception is the greatest evil, as it falls to the eyes of the beholder to what should be Good or Evil.
good, is doing things to befitting others and not to cause anyone harm,
Evil is committing harmful or helpful acts but not knowing the difference.
Evil is committing harmful or helpful acts but not knowing the difference.
d'aaaaw how can something so cute (based on your avatar) be evil?Rex Dark said:
anywaaay, evil is a deed that causes harm, mentaly or physically, to any other living creature.
good is an act that creats the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people.
justifiable evil is an evil act to gain a good act
What anime is she from?kittii-chan 300 said:d'aaaaw how can something so cute (based on your avatar) be evil?Rex Dark said:
i remembered eva-chan while typing this... ok g2g serve tea under threat of being powered down forever... (watch the show, you may understand. no, of course im not going to tell you the name of the show. no, of course im not going to give you the characters unabreviated name so you can find out.)
anywaaay, evil is a deed that causes harm, mentaly or physically, to any other living creature.
good is an act that creats the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people.
justifiable evil is an evil act to gain a good act
It might be interesting..
Now, I'd be curious to read what you'd write if you had to hussle up a full thesis on the question.Lone Skankster said:
OT: I envy this guy's train of thought, 'cos this was all that I had in mind:
Good: action which contributes best to the wellbeing of the planet and its constituents in the long-term (and if that means pruning the human population, so be it, kill me first).
Evil: the opposite.
But this renders all of good and all of evil purely subjective. Do you then contend that there are no universals, or no near-universals, regarding good and evil?Professor James said:
In her private journals, Ayn Rand praised what she described as the "integrity" of a famous serial killer, simply because he didn't prescribe to society's rigid moral system, including murdering innocent people. By your definition in the OP, said serial killer served what was positive in his own morals and is therefore a just man. The problem I have with your definition is that it does not account for sociopathy and for mental illnesses which result in a broken ideology of good and evil.
My definition: good is doing what helps (not what enables) people, regardless of whether one is seen doing it. This applies to the self as well as to others. So doing something that improves one's own life is moral, in my view. Helping to improve another's life, regardless of whether one makes sacrifices or "gets credit," is moral. Evil is visiting harm upon another person, either directly by intention or by allowing another to be harmed by an action that may improve one's own lot (see: multinational corporations).
A very thought-provoking thread. Thanks!
Good is someone who will not sacrifice their morals for their goal.
Evil is someone who could sacrifice their morals for their goal.
This is my humble opinion on this matter.
Evil is someone who could sacrifice their morals for their goal.
This is my humble opinion on this matter.
So what do you say to someone like me who can acknowledge the great many evils visited upon the Middle East and numerous other regions, on my dime, supposedly in my name, by my leaders, yet still identifies a mass murderer of civilians such as bin Ladin as evil?Lone Skankster said:
I agree with your assertions up to a point - "good" and "evil" become labels as soon as they become sound bites used to win elections and justify warfare-cum-enterprise. But I don't believe that they are inherently so. We all do bad things at times, and most everyone has done some good in their life. But people are defined, I think, primarily by two things: the overall sum of their actions, and whom they choose to be. You couldn't make a very compelling argument that Mother Theresa was evil (though I've seen it tried, right here on the escapist-the poster said she was "a *****" to his mother), or that Martin Luther King was evil because, though he tried to achieve equality for all Americans, he had extramarital affairs. And you could hardly argue the heroics of Dick Cheney or Osama bin Ladin in responding to evils visited upon their respective communities by embracing that very evil and visiting it back upon their enemies.
In the interest of logic, I'm going to skip around a little bit.funguy2121 said:
Let me start off by saying, in my personal opinion, Mother Theresa was a hero to countless slave refugees. However, One could argue that she was an evil woman if presented in the right context.
Lets say that your a White, aristocratic slave owner, whose entire well-being, lifestyle, and fortune rest upon the backs of unpaid slave labor. We recognize this today as Evil, but in the time period, it was the norm. (For example, George Washington is recognized as the father of our country and a war hero, yet he owned plenty of slaves. Its morally wrong, yet socially accepted at the time. In fact, most of, if not all, of the founding fathers owned slaves.) Mother Theresa was labelled as an evil woman back in the time of the civil war, for her actions against white plantation owners. The only reason that she is considered a saint by today's standards is because slavery was illegalized and her efforts were recognized. I dare to say that if slavery had continued to modern day times that Mother Theresa would have been declared a harlot, if she was to even be heard of at all.
Its all a matter of perception. Martin Luther King was assassinated, so there was obviously a group of people who considered him to be an evil man.
I agree that "good and evil" are sound bites, but not ones used only for political sway. In fact, I would argue that "good and evil" are sound bites for human nature.
Again, I personally viewed Bin Laden as an evil man, but he has followers who believe he was doing good work, and followers continuing to do his "good" work.
Its all based on how you perceive yourself, the world (and the time period within), and the people around you.
you can't really put a label on either, each one intersects into the other, and giving a complicated answer hurts my head so i'm going to leave it at that.
so simple answer
good - benevolence
evil - ruthlessness
so simple answer
good - benevolence
evil - ruthlessness
I'd replace 'morals' with 'things of value', because your 'morals' would be what you consider good or evil, and your 'things of value' would then be how you judge the moral implications of an action.Professor James said:
Good is something I like, or that benefits me.
Bad is something I don't like, or hurts me.
Morals don't exist. If they did, in some giant Holy Bible like fashion, then with the culminated efforts of 20,000 years and billions of people pondering the question, I think we would have made some sort of advance.
As it stands, we have the same questions as early man did.
Therefore, in my attempt to understand why I act, I have to bring it back to the self. "Good" is something that I makes me feel happy, or any other emotion that is "positive".
"Evil" is something that hurts someone I care about, or detracts from them, ultimately hurting me in a much more roundabout fashion. Because of this I don't think of evil as an antonym to good. Evil is more of a subset of bad, much more specified.
I don't use the term evil for anything that hurts me, because evil has a much more absolute connotation, and I feel it would be a tad conceited to call anyone evil who slighted me. (See what I did thar? Chuckle chuckle.)
Also, (bonus points) evil doesn't exist as a state of being, but rather a descriptor for actions.
A person who is doing good, because they want to do good, is good.
A person who is doing bad, because they want to do good, is good (while their actions are bad).
A person is doing good, because they want to do bad, is a sociopath, and does not want to do bad per se, but rather something that is enjoyable to them. What is enjoyable to them may coincide with what is bad, but that's not their intention.
A person who is doing bad, because they want do do bad, is a psychopath. Same reasoning as above.
________________________________________________________________________________________
One thing I would like to mention though, is that you talk of good and evil as a dichotomy. While it is necessary to do so for the sake of conversation, (else things would become much too convoluted for the human scope) it does not bely the truth of the situation nor is it going to get you anywhere in your endeavors to hit the ethical jackpot, i.e. a set of morals to get you through any untenable situation.
Bad is something I don't like, or hurts me.
Morals don't exist. If they did, in some giant Holy Bible like fashion, then with the culminated efforts of 20,000 years and billions of people pondering the question, I think we would have made some sort of advance.
As it stands, we have the same questions as early man did.
Therefore, in my attempt to understand why I act, I have to bring it back to the self. "Good" is something that I makes me feel happy, or any other emotion that is "positive".
"Evil" is something that hurts someone I care about, or detracts from them, ultimately hurting me in a much more roundabout fashion. Because of this I don't think of evil as an antonym to good. Evil is more of a subset of bad, much more specified.
I don't use the term evil for anything that hurts me, because evil has a much more absolute connotation, and I feel it would be a tad conceited to call anyone evil who slighted me. (See what I did thar? Chuckle chuckle.)
Also, (bonus points) evil doesn't exist as a state of being, but rather a descriptor for actions.
A person who is doing good, because they want to do good, is good.
A person who is doing bad, because they want to do good, is good (while their actions are bad).
A person is doing good, because they want to do bad, is a sociopath, and does not want to do bad per se, but rather something that is enjoyable to them. What is enjoyable to them may coincide with what is bad, but that's not their intention.
A person who is doing bad, because they want do do bad, is a psychopath. Same reasoning as above.
________________________________________________________________________________________
One thing I would like to mention though, is that you talk of good and evil as a dichotomy. While it is necessary to do so for the sake of conversation, (else things would become much too convoluted for the human scope) it does not bely the truth of the situation nor is it going to get you anywhere in your endeavors to hit the ethical jackpot, i.e. a set of morals to get you through any untenable situation.
I'm not entirely sure they exist as black and white definitions. It's more the degree to which you consider the needs of others instead of just acting out of malicious or selfish interests.