What's your definition of good and evil

[vxicepickxv]

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.

I don't even think acting out of selfish interests is truly considered evil. If you're doing something that has the potential to help out others as part of your job, is that good, or evil?

The biggest problem with trying to define good and evil is that in defining it, you're putting individual labels and boundaries on it. Just because you see something as good, doesn't mean that everyone sees it that way.

 

[Laser Priest]

I don't think I can really define them.

I'd say that going out of your way to help others is good, and going out of your way to harm others is evil.

If you're hurting others on your path to help yourself, you're not as much "evil" as you are a bit of an ass.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

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.

I don't even think acting out of selfish interests is truly considered evil. If you're doing something that has the potential to help out others as part of your job, is that good, or evil?

The biggest problem with trying to define good and evil is that in defining it, you're putting individual labels and boundaries on it. Just because you see something as good, doesn't mean that everyone sees it that way.

I guess I could have worded that better. I meant more "selfish" as in serving yourself at the expense of others. Treating myself to an iced mint mocha might be entirely motivated by selfish desires, but I don't think it's evil.

 

[Drummie666]

Good: What agrees with common culture
Evil: What disagrees with the common culture.

Good and evil are only dictated by culture, so the exact definition is kinda variable... as this thread shows.

That's what's in my book anyway.

 

[Professor James]

SNIP

Edit: nothing to see here a messed up post

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm so very glad you asked that!

Villain Core: Yes indeed, yes indeed...

Good and evil happen to be something that I philosophize about quite a bit. In fact, a paper involving that aced my Rationalism course in college. SO! Good and Evil, only...without the capitals. They're not necessary. Anyway...I feel that these are palpable things, the both of them. There's a statement that evil is merel the lack of good and all, but I don't buy into it. It's there, in my opinion. Not as something you can pick up and point at, but something in the aether with representations for it.

Actions are definitely good and evil, and so the things that which are neither good or evil may perform either one in accordance with some sort of personal choice. I speak of people and the tools they have which to change the world with. Nothing that we know in our physical existence is intrinsically evil or good, in reality. Angels and demons have yet to take more than a mythological step in the world. (Even when they're written about in religious texts, they're usually like...visions and such.)

What am I boiling it all down to? Intentions. Good and evil in the world is an intention which causes either helpfulness or hindrance, aid or harm. That, to me, appears to be the fullness of it. The power of evil and good is in the carrying out of intentions, pretty much.

 

[octafish]

To live morally, to be good, is to obey the golden rule [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule].
To be evil, is much harder to define. Perhaps it is an absence of empathy.

 

[Axzarious]

When you get down to it, "Good" is what is accepted by the majority of society while "Evil" is what the majority of society is against.

Usually this makes Evil "Whatever somebody does that benifits themselves and harms others" while good tends to be something that "Benifits one or more people and does little to no harm to a negligible amount of people"... In short, evil is the willful harm of others, while good is the willful helping of others.


And helping others and doing good deeds releases happy chemicals in your own brain, thus being good is a selfish act.

 

[funguy2121]

My definition is good is whatever is positive to your morals. Evil is what's negative to your morals.

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?

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).

I should have been more clear. What I said was a more impersonal definition. What I really think is good is evil is this. Good benefits mankind, evil harms mankind. Or on a smaller scale good benefits someone while evil harms someone.

A very thought-provoking thread. Thanks!

Um...thanks for quoting me?

 

[kittii-chan 300]

What anime is she from?
It might be interesting..

i recomend the manga over the anime a thousand times (even though there is a little bit of fanservice tutut) they are both called Mahou Sensei Negima! the character is evangeline mcdowell and she is awesome :3:3:3 i just went entirely against my post didnt i...

 

[kittii-chan 300]

Lelouch vi Britannia is good.

Light Yagami is evil.

i couldnt agree more. if you just look past the maniaclal laughter and minor mental defects you can see the healthy happy good soul. who is light?

 

[Griffolion]

Good: Love

Evil: Indifference

 

[Kyoufuu]

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.

You assume they have morals to begin with. By your logic, CompleteMonsters (yeah, TVTropes has ruined my life) aren't evil.

 

[Keava]

None. Both are terms that should never be constrained by simple definition. Both are highly subjective and depend on person and situation. Good and Evil are abstract concepts that are constantly reworked by different societies.

In short - moral nihilism.

 

[Matt-Sama]

Good: Something beneficial to me.
Evil: Something that gets in my way.

 

[funguy2121]

In the interest of logic, I'm going to skip around a little bit.

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.

I'm curious about your statements regarding Mother Teresa. She lived from 1910 to 1997, so she never saw the civil war. Her work did not involve slaves. You're right, it could be argued that she was evil if presented in the right context. A pretext is prerequisite for considering her evil.

I do understand that slavery, amongst a great many other evils, was once the norm. Societies progress in irreversible ways at key historic points wherein the right individuals decide to tolerate these evils no more, and the attention of a national audience is drawn to the issues. Preceding these events, society at large tolerates these evils by doing their best to ignore them, dismissing the victims as mongrels or justifying it as a "necessary evil." Though America probably would not have become a superpower as quickly, she more than likely would have enjoyed wealth comparable to what she enjoys today even without all of the virtually free labor of slavery. None of this has any bearing in my view on what can in fairness be considered evil.

MLK was not assassinated because of people who thought him evil. He drew attention to the shoddy way the US was handling much of its foreign policy, particularly in its involvement in Latin America and Southeast Asia, and was talking about amassing a global, unarmed, nonviolent army to combat Western and specifically American imperialism. He was killed because he represented a threat to Washington's policy toward globalization, not because he threatened anyone's well being. MLK taught and fought for equality for all. Perhaps some could argue that equality for all is evil, but I think that would require a fundamental misunderstanding of evil.

I hope none of this sounds pedantic or preachy or moralist. I think it's good that more and more of us are re-evaluating evil. The failures of our government in the last decade have a great deal to do with our misunderstanding of our enemies, which itself is probably more a result of a traditional, 2-dimensional "us and them" understanding of good and evil than anything else.

EDIT: One last thing. I think that one unique aspect of the time period in which we're living is that we are conscious of things that our forbearers couldn't be. We are aware that abhorrent things such as slavery and lesser rights for women and minorities were the norm. This affords us a new lens with which to view ourselves, living in our own time. What do we accept as the norm, as perfectly moral according to popular opinion, which we don't like to talk or think about too much because we know it's ugly? Torture? Rendition?

 

[Professor James]

My definition is good is whatever is positive to your morals. Evil is what's negative to your morals.

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?

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).

I should have been more clear. What I said was a more impersonal definition. What I really think is good is evil is this. Good benefits mankind, evil harms mankind. Or on a smaller scale good benefits someone while evil harms someone.

A very thought-provoking thread. Thanks!

Um...thanks for quoting me?

Sorry something must have messed up. What I meant to say was what I said was an impersonal definition to good and evil. My personal definition is good helps mankind while evil harms mankind. On a smaller scale, good helps people while evil harms people.

 

[Vesuvius Hetlan]

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.

You assume they have morals to begin with. By your logic, CompleteMonsters (yeah, TVTropes has ruined my life) aren't evil.

Yes that is my general assumption. Most people who commit evil deeds think they're doing the right thing even if in reality they aren't.