Define good and evil.
Riffing off Paul's post http://community.artofmanliness.com/forum/topics/morality-and-devia... I'd be interested to read how people define good and evil.
Clearly we have some theists amidst us, and for them the question should be easy to answer, but I'm more interested in whether or not the atheists have their own clear, concise and unambiguous definitions that do not reference any divine arbitration.
I do have my own ideas, but I don't want to color others' responses. At least not yet.
Clearly we have some theists amidst us, and for them the question should be easy to answer, but I'm more interested in whether or not the atheists have their own clear, concise and unambiguous definitions that do not reference any divine arbitration.
I do have my own ideas, but I don't want to color others' responses. At least not yet.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph L. Rogers on -
Sorry Will, Good and Evil are separate concepts from Right and Wrong.
Good - That which seeks to further all, to build upon the shoulders of those who've come before, to help those in need.
Evil - That which seeks to destroy, to maim, hurt and kill, for no reason other than just because.
It's very simplistic, I know, but the greatest truths tend to be so.
-
Permalink Reply by Barz on -
How about Hitler? He sought to build and advance his (chosen) race at the expense of all others. Evil, no doubt but he does not fit your categories.
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph L. Rogers on
-
"That which seeks to further ALL", Barz. Not a few, but all. What Hitler did was evil.
-
Permalink Reply by Barz on
-
Evil - That which seeks to destroy, to maim, hurt and kill, for no reason other than just because
I would, in no way, disagree that Hitler was evil. But, he had a reason, one that he felt very strongly about. I'm just pointing out that he did it for other reasons not "just because". He was able to rationalize his actions, as were hundreds of Nazis who helped him. I'm trying to illustrate that, unfortunately, defining evil is not always so simple.
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph L. Rogers on
-
He did not embody evil...but he had been touched by it. Think of the dark side. Your motives mean nothing...if what you're doing is done for the wrong reasons, or through the wrong methods, it's still evil.
-
Permalink Reply by Kultron Vesuvius on -
Don't you think that definition is rather simplistic? I suggest anyone thinking deeply about this topic to read this book by Nietzsche: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bygdv10.txt
-
Permalink Reply by Yankee Cowboy Bob on -
Hitler's favorite philosopher, who died in a madhouse? Good credentials.
-
Permalink Reply by Mungo Hossenfeffer on -
Are simple definitions a bad thing?
-
Permalink Reply by Will on -
By "right" I mean"morally right," and "wrong" I mean "morally wrong." We were talking about a *moral* context.
Anyway, we have a pair of definitions, so we're already into quibbles. I doubt we'll find our way out!
-
Permalink Reply by Phillip on -
Leave definitions to the dictionary.
In terms of evil, I think it has to do with a severly unbalanced life.
I'm more interisted in what the smallest good/evil act that can be done to another.
-
Permalink Reply by Mungo Hossenfeffer on
-
If we leave definitions to the dictionary, then there's no point in dictionaries.
This forum is populated by people from a wide variety of social and economic backgrounds, not to mention geographic ones. If we don't make sure we define certain critical terms we risk arguments rising purely from people misunderstanding how others are using those terms.
The internet has enough such arguments already. Let's be civil, cordial, and make sure when we disagree it's because we understand each other, not because we don't!
-
Permalink Reply by Yankee Cowboy Bob on
-
I disagree. Not sure if I understand you, but I'm all in favour of having a cordial.
Subscribe to the Art of Manliness Blog
AoM T-shirts
© 2009 Created by Brett McKay
