The nature of good and evil

M

Mr.Bill

New Member
This came up in the women as infantry thread so I figured I'd bring it up here.

Where do you think good and evil, the basis of morallity, come from? From God? From culture? Personal belief? From nothing? And how do justify that belief?

Mm, mayhaps this will spark some life back into this forum.. : )
 
Can't...create...constructive...thought...jumping...skunk...or beaver...badger thing...

ACK! Ok, I'm ok, I just had to shut my eyes there for a second.

Sheesh, what a question, where did our sense of morality come from? You couldn't think of something easier?
smile.gif


That's a hard question because morality is subjective. By that I mean it's culturally subjective. Europeans have a different sense of morality than Americans for example. We start having problems when we impose our sense of morality on others. Tribal headhunters believe it's perfectly acceptable to dismember and eat a fellow human being, yet it's against our moral fiber. Only until recently some members of this country felt it was morally acceptable to own slaves. And some in this very day and age believe it's morally acceptable to discriminate based on race.

But I digress. To answer your question I believe morailty was created by culture and society, hence the difference in morals between cultures.
 
well the US was founded by Christians so that explains many of our influences (10 commandments), though we're slowly losing the morals once instilled
 
Then who has it right? And is there a right answer?

I believe that there is. I do not believe that morallity is subjective. Rather, we do not fully understand morallity. I believe that morallity is objective, but is something that we have to discover. In a sense, similarly to mathematics. We do not know everything about math, and yet we know that 1 + 1 is always equal to 2. But can we be sure? Only through logically sound arguements, and that is very difficult. Sometimes things that we think is right, for instance slavery, is in actuallity wrong. Kind of like how it was recently discovered that a straight line is not necessarily the shortest distance between two points.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Then who has it right? And is there a right answer?

I believe that there is.
Click to expand...

Are you reffering to the women in infantry question or morailty in general?

If in general, I don't think that's correct.

Morality isn't a mathematical equation. Killing isn't always wrong, depending on the circumstances. Some things that would normally be considered immoral can become morally right depending on the circumstances.
 
I guess mathamatics was a bad anology, I don't mean to say that morallity can be decided by something akin to an equation. I mean that I believe it is similar to mathamatics in that there is one set of rules, one 'right answer' to the question of what is good and evil. If it's not objective, it's based on someone's opinion, be that someone God, an individual, or a culture, and I don't think that that makes sense. I beleive that morallity has always existed, and that it is something that we must discover and come to understand with time.
 
I think it eventually boils down to the golden rule: We treat others the way that we want to be treated. But that's only the foundation. The society and culture we live in defines the rest. Why do we believe that cultures that slice off the clitoris of girls is wrong? Why do we beleive that slavery is wrong? Why do we believe that ethnic cleansing is reprehensible? Our society is constantly erecting a moral majority. At one time we didn't think that women had the right to vote. As our understanding grew we realized that women are equal to men and granted them equal privelages. Morality is a product of the evolution of society.
 
I don't see how morality can be objective. You're saying that there should be a finite set of ethics but I don't understand how you expect to reach that set. As I said before, morality is based on society, and for there to be a base set of moral rules you would have to assert that society would never change. Intelligence, education, wisdom and understanding help define our moral compass. To stem the change of our morality would mean putting a limit on our understanding. Even if we were to somehow reach an intelligence plateau, morality would still be affected by outside sources. So no, I don't believe there is a finite base line for morality. It isn't something that is set in stone, but rather something that evolves within a given society.
 
Mr Bill:

You're right, it doesn't make much sense. Can you make it a little clearer?

Please?
biggrin.gif


DV says the Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. To me, this pretty much sums things up. Except in very exceptional cases, if people treats others as they would like- with respect, dignity, care, and compassion, many other aspects of marality are needless.

Sadly, humans are selfish by nature. One of our natural compunctions is to have more, get more, elbow others out of the way to get it/there. We are competitive, selfish and greedy.

By the same token we have the ability to sympathise, to empathise and to be compassionate to others. And herin lies the game.

Two different soldiers: a captured enemy before them who is to be shot. The soldier kneels down and cries and begs for mercy. One soldier cannot bear to kill a man in this manner and spares him. Alternatively, he may feel disgusted at the former soldiers lack of guts and refuse to shoot him for that reason.

Conversely, a soldier might decide to shoot him in a sadistic display of violence. Or because that man poses a danger to other people, or because of what that man did to someone else. As you can see, there are already many variables for a single moral dillema. It all boils down to personal feelings and opinions. That which is sickening to one man may be a surce of pleasure for another.
 
How can we define what is moral if we do not have a definition of what is good and evil? Should not those standards be set first?

Gen
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]How can we define what is moral if we do not have a definition of what is good and evil? Should not those standards be set first?
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are suggesting without the context of the bible, moral decisions cannot be made, yes?

If this were true, and man needed an instruction manual to decide what was good and bad (i.e. the bible) then we would be in a very poor way.

And how does the bible cover non-biblical situations? The bible does not (to my knowledge) directly forbid abortion. People claim abortion is against the bible.

What about animal experimentation? Battery hens? Mistreatment of pets? I can't say for sure if the bible does or does not forbid cruelty to animals, but there certainly is nothing about experimentation on animals. So how would you decide if this is wrong, based on the fact the bible does not tell you how to act?

what about a moral dillema? Suppose you had the option of using IVF to engineer a child that would have a certain blood type to save an existing child through transfusion. Many people, Christian and not, say this is wrong. Yet the bible makes no mention of this kind of problem. Again, since you cannot use the bible in this case (Or if you can, tell me how) how would you decide what was right and wrong?

Depending on the bible to make your morals is not a wise way to live, because strict adherence to the morals of the bible can only cover so many contigencies. What happens when a situation arises that the bible does not cover?
 
I'm not exactly sure that's what she was suggesting
smile.gif


So then, put the shoe on the other foot. How do you suggest one define good and evil without religion to set the standard? I'd like to hear your opinion on this. As I have said before, my opinion is that society determines good and evil and that notion evolves along with society.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are suggesting without the context of the bible, moral decisions cannot be made, yes?
Click to expand...

You're wrong. I was only trying to get to the root of how moral decisions are made. Nothing about my opinion was mentioned here.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If this were true, and man needed an instruction manual to decide what was good and bad (i.e. the bible) then we would be in a very poor way.
Click to expand...

We are in a bad way because more of us are not looking at the instructions that God left for us.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And how does the bible cover non-biblical situations? The bible does not (to my knowledge) directly forbid abortion. People claim abortion is against the bible.
Click to expand...

I have not come against an issue that requires a moral decision that was not covered in the Bible. Others may have. Without this developing into a thread on abortion and "reproductive rights", life begins at conception. God knits us together in our mother's womb. Since abortion terminates the pregancy early, the child is killed. That one hits pretty hard against one of the 10 commmandments.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What about animal experimentation? Battery hens? Mistreatment of pets? I can't say for sure if the bible does or does not forbid cruelty to animals, but there certainly is nothing about experimentation on animals. So how would you decide if this is wrong, based on the fact the bible does not tell you how to act?
Click to expand...

God gave us dominion over the animals, just as a King or Queen rules over their land. This does not mean you treat them poorly, experiment on them with whatever you choose, mistreat them etc.


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]what about a moral dillema? Suppose you had the option of using IVF to engineer a child that would have a certain blood type to save an existing child through transfusion. Many people, Christian and not, say this is wrong. Yet the bible makes no mention of this kind of problem. Again, since you cannot use the bible in this case (Or if you can, tell me how) how would you decide what was right and wrong?
Click to expand...

Again, God is the creator of all life. If I were to engineer a child for my purpose, I would be saying that God made a mistake in creating the child they way He did. God does not makes mistakes. He does not say oops.

So my question stands. What is the definition of good and evil?

Gen
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
We are in a bad way because more of us are not looking at the instructions that God left for us.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that many civilisations, like the Greeks believed in their own Gods that we today ridicule as the superstitions of bygone eras. Yet the Greeks produced some of the finest philosophers and artists of their time.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
I have not come against an issue that requires a moral decision that was not covered in the Bible. Others may have. Without this developing into a thread on abortion and "reproductive rights", life begins at conception. God knits us together in our mother's womb. Since abortion terminates the pregancy early, the child is killed. That one hits pretty hard against one of the 10 commmandments.
Click to expand...

Maybe this should become a new topic, but it would be rude on my part not to reply.
At conception, we are a couple of cells. At this stage, we show no more life than an amoeba. All a human does at this stage is multiply and multiply. Bacteria and viruses show greater levels of life acitivity by multiplying as human cells do, but also actively seeking out food, developing resistances to environmental hazards etc. Does this mean we are wrong to kill cellular life-forms? Remember, God made these too.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
God gave us dominion over the animals, just as a King or Queen rules over their land. This does not mean you treat them poorly, experiment on them with whatever you choose, mistreat them etc.
Click to expand...

You didn't really answer the question. I asked: How do you determine that this is morally right/wrong as it is not covered in the bible? I wasn't suggesting people use the bible to justify cruelty to animals (Though I'm sure there are few people like that out there.)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Again, God is the creator of all life. If I were to engineer a child for my purpose, I would be saying that God made a mistake in creating the child they way He did. God does not makes mistakes. He does not say oops.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality: why make people gay when they are not allowed to do what comes naturally?
Lesch-Nyhan: 'nuff said, really. If you call that God's will, there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So my question stands. What is the definition of good and evil?
Click to expand...

If I could answer that definitively, I would make a fortune. MY point was that you cannot base an entire society and it's morals on the Ten Commandments without elaborating with further rules and restrictions. Unfortunately I could not honestly claim I know what Good and Evil is. DV knows it better than I. He mentioned ethics evolving with the society. Perhaps Good depends on who benefits and how. There are simply to many variables to make a difinitive expression of what is good or not. If someone can, please post it up.
 
If Man was given dominion over the animals, does that make it morally right to walk around and kick every dog you see or tie a firecracker to a cat's tail?

Just saying man was given dominion over animals doesn't consitute what is morally right or wrong?

I think that is what Jim was referring to.

Testing on animals may be despicable when it comes to cosmetics, but I am all in favor of testing on animals if the end result is a cure for disease. (Actually I am more in favor of testing on convicted murderers and rapists, but that's just me)
smile.gif
 
One thing that should be noted is the evolution of ethics WITHIN the Bible.

God is the parent that does not lead by example, but rather follows the creed, "Do as I say, not as I do".

How many times did God bend, if not outright break, the 10 commandments?

Christ then comes along and sets a new moral standard in the NT to fit with the evolution that society had undergone since the OT.
 
A few quotes to consider:

"Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil." -- Albert Schweitzer, 1949

"How is one to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one's culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light." -- Barry Lopez

"I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." -- Molly Ivins
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top