Do we need Good/Evil?

[Kevin]

I was thinking about this while on the way to the Burn Halo/Papa Roach/Avenged Sevenfold/Buckcherry concert on Friday (Kickass concert by the way :p)

Does society need Good and Evil? I was thinking, it definitely helps.
Without there being evil in the world, and only good, well for one, the world would be a boring place and the media would be boring as hell. Ever notice how you really only see bad things on the news?

But also, there being evil gives people a standard to live by. People see what bad/evil people do, and want to live above it, and set a standard for their lives without really noticing it. It gives people also a reason to do better in life, for the same reason. They don't want to end up like the guy that has to mug and steal his way through life.

That is my view point on it.

[Hitsumei]

Does society need Good and Evil? I was thinking, it definitely helps.
Without there being evil in the world, and only good, well for one, the world would be a boring place and the media would be boring as hell. Ever notice how you really only see bad things on the news?

So you would rather not see a world without rape, murder, pedophilia, war, natural disasters, and pandemics because then the news wouldn't be as interesting? And it is all good because that kind of thing only happens to other people? Am I reading you correctly? ...I can't be...

But also, there being evil gives people a standard to live by. People see what bad/evil people do, and want to live above it, and set a standard for their lives without really noticing it. It gives people also a reason to do better in life, for the same reason. They don't want to end up like the guy that has to mug and steal his way through life.

So, there should be poor and starving people so that rich people can feel better about their accomplishments and so forth? Really?  

What's the use of being a good person if there aren't any bad people to lord it over?

[AlP]

Does society need Good and Evil?

First of all, I don't think society really has good and evil. They aren't real. They're moral concepts we use to reason about the intent and consequences of people's actions. They're just ideas. Some things we like or approve of and we might choose to think of those as right or good. Others we dislike or disapprove of and we might choose to think of those as wrong or evil. Ethics need not be based on the concepts of good and evil though. In fact I think they make for rather shallow dogmatic ethics.

Without there being evil in the world, and only good, well for one, the world would be a boring place and the media would be boring as hell.

I predict there will always be things we will want to change in the world and we will find fulfillment in changing them. Nobody needs to suffer for there to be interesting things for us to do. I don't see why the media would be boring without evil.

But also, there being evil gives people a standard to live by. People see what bad/evil people do, and want to live above it, and set a standard for their lives without really noticing it. It gives people also a reason to do better in life, for the same reason. They don't want to end up like the guy that has to mug and steal his way through life.

I would not like to live my life relative to a standard like that. I think it would lead to mediocrity. It would be too easy for me to see myself as okay just because I think I'm better than some evil person. There is always potential to improve. Even for some hypothetical  "most good" human in existence, they could still improve.

If I have any kind of standard against which I measure myself, it is myself at the present moment in time. And I'm thinking about what I want to be in the next moment in time relative to that standard.

I prefer to think, "what do I want to change today?" and then go change it. I like it simple.

Does anyone agree with me that good and evil are over-complicated and unnecessary?

[liveyoungdiefast]

I personally think that since conscious beings are not born with a purpose and have to create one for themselves, one of the things we should be striving for as a society is a more peaceful civilization where through our evolving human nature and technology, we can make conscious life a peaceful existence for everyone.

I think there are 2 types of evil, one not being a true evil. The type that isn't a real evil is the tragedies of nature. The 'evils' we do that reflect the animal nature in us. But since we have evolved away from it we need not revert back to it. In the jungle where there are no humans present there are no goods and evils, there's just nature, even all the killing within it has no morality, it simply is what it is. But since we've evolved, it hurts us to see others just like us harmed by nature, through disasters or diseases or anything else. It is natural for this to cause us emotional pain, but it is only nature, not a real evil. Sometimes nature causes us problems amongst ourselves, like handicapped people or the mentally ill, whom depending on their situation, we may have to treat with therapy, medicine, care for, or if they are the dangerously mentally ill like serial killers and pedophiles, we may have to lock them up for society's good. These are all still problems of nature, through knowledge and technology we can advance the way we handle them and hopefully decrease their occurrence.

All real evils, from my perspective, eventually go back to not man itself, but to institutions. Government, religion, money, nation, and so on. My reason for feeling this way is because I believe if a rational human being takes a look at themselves or their lives, they will find that while instinct drives them to look out for themselves, and this is perfectly good and natural, they will have the best life possible by looking out for their fellow human beings, trying to develop things like love with others, and so on. I only can see from my own perspective, but from my lifetime of interactions with others I can mostly conclude that people generally want the same things, to live, experience, and find others they can connect with, as friends or as lovers. So the evils come in from institutions. The religion that has narrowed your perspective, halted your learning, and perhaps dried up your compassion for those outside of it. The government that attempted to control you and deprive you of freedom, the monetary system that made you desperate and caused your survival instincts to make you want to steal from others, the country that became a symbol for war to hide the truth of those profiting off death.

I'm not advocating for anarchism, simply a realization by all people that they are fully in control of their institutions if they want to be.

My personal philosophy for the world is advancement of conscious existence through knowledge, technology, and a more peaceful and stable world. In that regard, there are some 'evils' that have to be eliminated; where I differ from religion is that I think humans have a much greater potential for good than evil. And that intense, unquestioning belief systems are not what will surely save you but will surely damn you, as in damn you from making a positive impact or enjoying your temporary life.

[G.ENIGMA]

I think it all depends on who the "We" are and what "they" class as good/evil.

Many religions absolutely need "Evil" to exist otherwise there would me no reference point for then to compare themselves as people who are not evil .

Many Governments need to portray people who aren't necessarily evil as evil people in order to justify their need for control . There are many examples of people who were once classed as "evil people" by governments who are now actually part of that same government.

These so called reformed evil people  .

My classification of evil is simple ... If you "deliberately" harm somebody.

I have a few exceptions which readily spring to mind

1. self defence which is carried out at the precise time you are being attacked (not revenge)
2. in order to stop people from deliberately harming someone else, you may need to hurt that person or persons in some way.

 :crazy: [/b]

[AlP]

When I started this post I was going to point out reasons why we should not tolerate any kind of evil, however after a few minutes of listening to myself blabber on I have to admit .. sometimes we have no choice but to be evil in order to be good

I suggest to you that it is because good and evil are not real. They are just concepts like blue and yellow. They can overlap.

1. self defence which is carried out at the precise time you are being attacked (not revenge)

This is why I think good / evil is an ineffective ethical outlook in this case. An assumption some people make is that good and evil are real and /or that they are absolute. They are not. You have to look at the outcome from your own point of view. Ethics is relative. From your point of view, you don't want to be harmed and you consider your own safety as more important than the attacker. So you defend yourself. Rather than worrying that what you're doing is "evil", you could think something like this. I could get harmed. I don't like that. My attacker could get harmed. I don't like that either. But I think one of us is going to get harmed and I would prefer for it not to be me. I think I am justified in defending myself. No dilemma! Pondering good and evil is a waste of time.

There are much harder ethical dilemmas than this. But I have never encountered one where the concepts of good and evil simplified things for me.

[G.ENIGMA]

I suggest to you that it is because good and evil are not real. They are just concepts like blue and yellow. They can overlap.

I disagree. I am not talking about GOoD & dEVIL here.

Though of course the concept of Good & Evil could be replaced with "as you say" blue & yellow or even indeed with "bad & not bad" or "black and white" "naughty or kind" etc etc, the term Good & Evil is usually used in the English language to signify the difference between those who deliberately do harm and those who dont.

So in my mind and using the limitations of my language, Good people & Evil people definitely do exist and therefor are real.

Rather than worrying that what you're doing is "evil", you could think something like this. I could get harmed. I don't like that. My attacker could get harmed. I don't like that either. But I think one of us is going to get harmed and I would prefer for it not to be me. I think I am justified in defending myself.

On a less serious note here :blink:

[adimagejim]

I would suggest in place of good and evil a more outcome based scale of progress and regress in a societal sense is more reasonable. And no, I don't mean the end justifies the means. The means would have to be weighed by many along with the actual result to determine whether progress was truly made.

Atomic power for instance, on balance we would have to say (to date) it is a positive or progress making step on a societal scale. But the full story has yet to be told. So if we blow ourselves to smithereens, then it is regressive. If we build even more clean power facilities that help alleviate human problems (as we generally have so far) then progress it is.

I know the Nietzsche (sp?) lovers are going crazy on the whole Will to Power notion reading this. But let's face it, that whole individualistic notion doesn't wash in a social contract environment. Yeah yeah, Nietzsche says those with the Will write the social contracts and rewrite them. That is how you get guys like Stalin, Hitler, et. al. and the fearful sycophants who follow them.

A personal sense of decisions having an overall positive, progressive, good result is an enlightenment level I hope we all seek to achieve. Naturally some actions will result in more progress than others, so it is up to us to get the most out of each decision to help ourselves without causing regression to others.

Jim

[liveyoungdiefast]

I would suggest in place of good and evil a more outcome based scale of progress and regress in a societal sense is more reasonable. And no, I don't mean the end justifies the means. The means would have to be weighed by many along with the actual result to determine whether progress was truly made.

Sometimes the ends do justify the means though. Conversely, look at this in a different way - if good intentions produce negative results the action is overall still a negative action.

[AlP]

Though of course the concept of Good & Evil could be replaced with "as you say" blue & yellow or even indeed with "bad & not bad" or "black and white" "naughty or kind" etc etc, the term Good & Evil is usually used in the English language to signify the difference between those who deliberately do harm and those who dont.

If that is the sense in which you mean good and evil then I think that is reasonable. I feel I have to labor this point though. Sometimes people, in identifying that good and evil are significant to them, tend to project that significance onto real world objects. Maybe they think they might go digging in their garden someday and find some. That will never happen. They're just concepts. Language can also confuse. Their being words "good" and "evil" can lead to someone inferring that they might actually exist in nature.

On a less serious note here :blink:

On a less serious note... Before or during. Afterwards, I would suggest seeing a therapist .

[G.ENIGMA]

On a less serious note here :blink:

On a less serious note... Before or during. Afterwards, I would suggest seeing a therapist :blink: ) I will remember where you are

[templeboy]

Evolution is a game, and the stakes are so high, that we will win however we need to. By cooperating, by cheating, by trusting, by mistrusting. Evolution will naturally drive any excess of any of these back towards an equilibrium point.

There, evolution has an explanation for evil, while no so-called "alternative" has anything to offer.  :banna:

But to talk about it in terms of need? No, we don't need evil any more than I need to be somewhere else at 10pm on a Friday night...

[RJMooreII]

Good and evil - conceived of as intrinsic values, or imperative statements, do not exist.  We can not refer to the value of anything without reference to values a particular agent has.  Value only has existence within a particular valuing agent, whose conception of 'value' only occurs by its relation to ends which he expects will satisfy him and the means which he perceives will achieve them.  There is no value which is either 'in itself' or 'a priori' accordable to all individuals - this is a matter of the factual state of satisfaction-aims an individual has (note that these need not be explicit or intellectually apprehended).  And there can be no valuation of means (or states of affairs) except as a perceived relationship between these means/states of affairs and the attainment of this satisfaction-goal.

Whether or not we 'need' good and evil, we can not have it; at least not in the sense most ethical discourse wishes to appertain.  While moral sentiments, drives and 'internal' systems can exist, they are in fact baseless and have no explanatory, predictive or imperative capacity.