What is good and what is evil?

[Atomic Utopia]

So, I was looking into the past in this forum, and I have seen many fights between the forces of good and evil, of right and wrong. Take for example the time that good bested evil in the right wing discussion thread

Now, there is only one trouble with all this matter, who is good and who is evil?

The reason I ask this is that we all seem to operate on different views of morality. Some of us place human life above ideals, some of us place human life as secondary to ideals.

So seeing that there are large differences in what we view as moral, is there an objective, true, morality, or are there many different, equally valid moralities? Or perhaps something different altogether?

In my opinion, there are many different moral views, and no one is concretely more valid. But such concrete statements do not interest me, for I feel that what is enough to guide morality is empathy, pure logic sadly does not play too well with the concepts of good and evil. While empathy has no intrinsic value, it has value to me, and thus it guides me to the conclusion that utilitarianism is the only moral choice, that killing outside of self defense is wrong, and that charity is a great virtue to hold. Though obviously I cannot argue it from a purely logical sense why my empathy holds any value.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Good is whatever benefits me, my kin and my nation. Evil is whatever does the opposite. No need to complicate things.

[Atomic Utopia]

Good is whatever benefits me, my kin and my nation. Evil is whatever does the opposite. No need to complicate things.

Why is it good to benefit your nation, why is it evil to do the opposite, and what is your nation, and what is that which benefits it?

[United Marxist Nations]

I think good and evil can best be defined by teleology: fulfilling purpose and refusal to fulfill purpose, respectively.

[New Werpland]

I think evil can best be defined in terms of teleology: fulfilling of purpose.

Why's that evil? I remember reading that fulfilling of purpose was good in teleological ethics.

[The New Sea Territory]

Nothing is good and nothing is evil. All moral claims are false:

• All moral statements express propositions (cognitivism) about what values are objective;
• There are no objective values (which I defend with materialism);
• Thus, all moral claims are false

It's error theory + materialism. This doesn't mean I condone everything, but that I find no moral basis to argue from that can be philosophically defended. I try to avoid moral language in argument as a result.

[Genivaria]

Good is that which helps, evil is what hurts.
That is of course a ridiculous oversimplification but I think you get the gist of it.

[Tutukerala]

Good is found through reason.


So basically natural law coming from God.


That's the thomistic belief

[United Marxist Nations]

I think evil can best be defined in terms of teleology: fulfilling of purpose.

Why's that evil? I remember reading that fulfilling of purpose was good in teleological ethics.

Let me correct that, lol

[New confederate ramenia]

good and evil are s p 0 0 k y

I think evil can best be defined in terms of teleology: fulfilling of purpose.

Why's that evil? I remember reading that fulfilling of purpose was good in teleological ethics.

I think he's saying failure to fulfill purpose is evil, succeeding to fulfill purpose is good

[Thermodolia]

Good is that which helps, evil is what hurts.
That is of course a ridiculous oversimplification but I think you get the gist of it.

Works for me. I like simple.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Good is whatever benefits me, my kin and my nation. Evil is whatever does the opposite. No need to complicate things.

Why is it good to benefit your nation, why is it evil to do the opposite, and what is your nation, and what is that which benefits it?

Collective survival. Everybody wants to live, and everybody most definitely wants to live without hardship and danger. Banding together in tribes and nations is the way to accomplish that - provided everyone pulls his due weight towards that end. Hence actions that serve the interests of the tribe are deemed righteous, because they aid in those efforts, while those that hinder them will naturally be received with hostility.

Not to mention that serving your nation, your people, is in your own self-interest. If they as a whole are strong and prosperous, so too will you have better opportunity of fulfilling your needs and desires.

What benefits your people is whatever fulfills their current needs, whatever brings more benefit than harm to their collective interests. It is by default righteous, because that is in fact the very essence of righteousness.

[United Marxist Nations]

Good is that which helps, evil is what hurts.
That is of course a ridiculous oversimplification but I think you get the gist of it.

Helping and hurting what, though?

[Genivaria]

Good is that which helps, evil is what hurts.
That is of course a ridiculous oversimplification but I think you get the gist of it.

Helping and hurting what, though?

People, and societies of people.

[United Marxist Nations]

Helping and hurting what, though?

People, and societies of people.

But what is helping and hurting them, what are we helping and hurting them from doing?

[Genivaria]

People, and societies of people.

But what is helping and hurting them, what are we helping and hurting them from doing?

This statement makes no sense.

But for your first question most would agree with things like pleasure is preferable to pain and life is preferable to death, those who disagree aren't really around to give their opinion.
So where exactly is the confusion?

[Tutukerala]

Why is it good to benefit your nation, why is it evil to do the opposite, and what is your nation, and what is that which benefits it?

Collective survival. Everybody wants to live, and everybody most definitely wants to live without hardship and danger. Banding together in tribes and nations is the way to accomplish that - provided everyone pulls his due weight towards that end. Hence actions that serve the interests of the tribe are deemed righteous, because they aid in those efforts, while those that hinder them will naturally be received with hostility.

Not to mention that serving your nation, your people, is in your own self-interest. If they as a whole are strong and prosperous, so too will you have better opportunity of fulfilling your needs and desires.

What benefits your people is whatever fulfills their current needs, whatever brings more benefit than harm to their collective interests. It is by default righteous, because that is in fact the very essence of righteousness.

What if the collective attacks another group of collective in order to lower its hardships. As in the case of early human history. The use of war for material gain. Is that good?

[United Marxist Nations]

But what is helping and hurting them, what are we helping and hurting them from doing?

This statement makes no sense.

But for your first question most would agree with things like pleasure is preferable to pain and life is preferable to death, those who disagree aren't really around to give their opinion.
So where exactly is the confusion?

Whose pleasure and whose pain? Why are these things good in and of themselves, rather than just being arbitrary opinions?

[Gages Icelandic Army]

Time for the stereotypical answer: nothing is good and nothing is evil. We should only acknowledge the existence of things that have evidence to their existence. Our strong opposition to murder obviously comes from the genetic need to minimize risk. Our opposition to rape comes from the desire to choose our own mate. Theft is "evil" because we or our families could one day be the victims.

Dogmatism makes it worse. We start to see things as evil that don't even make sense.

[Kazarogkai]

"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." - Socrates

[The New Sea Territory]

Helping and hurting what, though?

People, and societies of people.

Helping "people" can often be used as a justification for hurting actually-existing people. "People" benefited in the utilitarian sense never seem to be treated as individuals, but as a monolithic abstraction.

Not to mention that serving your nation, your people, is in your own self-interest. If they as a whole are strong and prosperous, so too will you have better opportunity of fulfilling your needs and desires.

So long as "the nation" and "the people", or any other geist without content is prosperous, I am not. It is in my interest to see these smashed, and to "philosophize with a hammer" as Nietzsche put it.

From Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum: "The fall of peoples and mankind will invite me to my rise."

[Libertypendence Park]

Is this even a question?

Good heavens, is this even a question?

General rule of thumb: if ever you find yourself wondering if something is good or evil, SHUT UP FOR FIVE MINUTES, lie down, dispense of any split second opinions you've already developed, ignore the "good guys" and the "bad guys", and just think about it. Five minutes. By the very clock. If it takes you longer than that to come to a conclusion, then, and only then, are you justified in propogating your nihilistic wangst.

[The New Sea Territory]

"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." - Socrates

I'm sure Socrates would say Ted Kaczynski was a good man.

[Empire of Narnia]

Good is Christian values and Chuck E. Cheese.

Evil is everything that opposes the former.

[Genivaria]

This statement makes no sense.

But for your first question most would agree with things like pleasure is preferable to pain and life is preferable to death, those who disagree aren't really around to give their opinion.
So where exactly is the confusion?

Whose pleasure and whose pain? Why are these things good in and of themselves, rather than just being arbitrary opinions?

Well I never said they weren't opinions for one, and I already gave you the basis for them so by definition they're not arbitrary.
So what exactly is your objection?