Good and Evil

[Hate Is Art]

What about Good and Evil? Are they pure opinions which therefore show a wider view of morality?

Or is this a complete fabrication and good and evil in fact don't exist at all and morality is a bogus idea?

[1felix]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 21 2004, 05:43 PM
What about Good and Evil? Are they pure opinions which therefore show a wider view of morality?

Or is this a complete fabrication and good and evil in fact don't exist at all and morality is a bogus idea?
Well, everything depands on the individual opinion. For exemple, Geogre W. Bush did think that invading Iraq was a good thing and Saddam didn't. That's it: good can be bad. Since God is dead everything can be good if we just accepted the bad as a part of us instead of rejecting it. It's good to do drugs, I even run faster when I do it. As long it's a part of your nature. Do you want to eat good food? Do it.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Good and evil are mere interpetations of phemonena like anything else except that they are based on a social construct called morality.

As social constructs serve to order societies morality and thus good and bad serve to control humans, to keep them subservient and weak.

There is no such thing as good and evil outside of its own set of social structure, namely morality gives it meaning.

How can what is considered good in one society be objectively good or evil when the other half of the world considers the opposite to be true?

The truth is never static, it is based on interpetation, the same with morality.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I have never seen, touched, heard or seen scientific evidence of "good" and "evil". Therefore, my guess it that it doesn't exist,
it is something we invented to live in society, and to avoid being killed, raped, robbed, etc. It was probably created by a ruling class so that the rest would obey them.

[Hate Is Art]

Green (the colour exists) but can you scientificaly prove it does? In the same sense Good and Evil, although completly subjective, exist as well, if I classify something as good, an interpretation of it is good, and thus Good exists.

[illmilitant]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 21 2004, 01:43 PM
What about Good and Evil? Are they pure opinions which therefore show a wider view of morality?

Or is this a complete fabrication and good and evil in fact don't exist at all and morality is a bogus idea?
Not in America (U.S.A)...bcuz as long as christianity and conservatives control the government...there is only whats wrong and whats wrong...no matter what the majority of politically concious citizens may think, and in a country in which even voting for a president doesn't count, then what more can we expect, bsides bigrotry, classism and oppression. But i do believe that the decision between good and evil, is within each persons mind, generalizing it only makes way for argument..

[Hate Is Art]

Try to use proper English. We're not 733t but we it just makes you not sound like a 12 year old. If your actually 12, my apologies for stereotyping you. :)

[kami888]

Green (the colour exists) but can you scientificaly prove it does?
What did you mean by that? Green is the electromagnetic wave of certain wavelength/frequency. We might not call it green, we might call it something else, but that is not going to change its frequency anyway. If you want a proof that the electromagnetic waves exist, well the fact that we can see stuff around us proves it. Without electromagnetic waves created by fusion reaction in our sun, we would not be able to see anything because our eyes would not recieve the electromagnetic waves that bounce off the objects around us.

I do not believe there is univesal good and evil.
This factors, like many others depend on our nature and nurture. We believe in what our genes say and what the people around us say, and from there we make our opinions on what is good/bad, nice/ugly, etc.

[DaCuBaN]

What did you mean by that? Green is the radio wave of certain wavelength/frequency. We might not call it green, we might call it something else, but that is not going to change its frequency anyway. If you want a proof that the radio waves exist, well the fact that we can see stuff around us proves it. Without radio waves created by fusion reaction in our sun, we would not be able to see anything because our eyes would not recieve the radiowaves that bounce off the objects around us.


Close enough, but remember that no two people perceive 'green' as the same thing. Although we can agree that a colour is green, it could in fact be blue (if we could see through anotherpair of eyes for a day).

It, like good and evil, are purelly subjective. They are abstract to say the least, just as with everything else.

[kami888]

Close enough, but remember that no two people perceive 'green' as the same thing. Although we can agree that a colour is green, it could in fact be blue (if we could see through anotherpair of eyes for a day).

Well, this is just our language. Our textbooks say that the color of this frequency must be called 'green'. In fact, if we would call the this frequency 'abcdefg', nothing would really change. it's just the way we name it.

[Hate Is Art]

In Germany Red is Rot, Blue is Blauen? I may call the Green you call Green Lime Green, or Olive.

[DaCuBaN]

Well, this is just our language. Our textbooks say that the color of this frequency must be called 'green'. In fact, if we would call the this frequency 'abcdefg', nothing would really change. it's just the way we name it.

It's our perception as well, not just our language. We name things for the sake of converse (it would be pretty difficult without).

Other examples would be that Stalin and Pol Pot firmly believed they were doing the right thing for 'communism'.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Green is an objective colour, it exists in the world as a phenomena that we all agree is the colour green.

Good and evil are social constructs which we all dont agree on.

There is a major difference.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 01:37 PM
Good and evil are social constructs which we all dont agree on.

That doesn't necesarrily mean that there isn't an ideal of 'good' or moral virtue that we should aspire to, whether individually or as a species.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:45 PM
Good and evil are mere interpetations of phemonena like anything else except that they are based on a social construct called morality.

As social constructs serve to order societies morality and thus good and bad serve to control humans, to keep them subservient and weak.

There is no such thing as good and evil outside of its own set of social structure, namely morality gives it meaning.

How can what is considered good in one society be objectively good or evil when the other half of the world considers the opposite to be true?

The truth is never static, it is based on interpetation, the same with morality.
That doesn't mean we can't use morality as a tool to construct our own ideal society.

[James]

Nothing is good or bad - but thinking makes it so

- Shakespeare

[Hate Is Art]

that the point I was trying to make in my previous posts.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 23 2004, 02:53 PM
That doesn't necesarrily mean that there isn't an ideal of 'good' or moral virtue that we should aspire to, whether individually or as a species.

Yes it does, if everything is interpetation there can be no objective good or evil.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 23 2004, 03:00 PM
That doesn't mean we can't use morality as a tool to construct our own ideal society.
So it is fine to construct false moralities in the name of an ideal society.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 09:13 PM

Yes it does, if everything is interpetation there can be no objective good or evil.
I don't like the terms 'good and evil', but 'right and wrong', 'virtuous and base', whatever you want to call it, just because it doesn't exist outside of human imagination doesn't mean that there isn't an ideal moral code which would best suit humanities needs, which are, for the most part, objective and unchanging.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 09:13 PM
So it is fine to construct false moralities in the name of an ideal society.
No morality is false; you've said yourself there is no true or false morality. But we can construct a morality which is best suited for the society we create. Every society has moral codes which help them function; theft, extramarital sex, murder, lying are considered immoral in western society, while honor, the work ethic, and compassion are considered moral. Every legal code is also founded on moral judgements; even the most banal, such as stoplights and traffic regulations are based on the moral judgement that order is preferable to chaos.

Morals are not just intended to keep humans subservient and weak; in fact, considering the condition of being subservient and weak as reprehensible or undesirable is in itself a moral judgment. Morals are the underlying fabric of society. If you don't like our society's morals, fine, but if you choose to live outside them you are yourself, by the very act of choosing immorality, endorsing an alternative moral ethos.

So back to the point, if we want to found an ideal society, we are going to have to construct a moral code which coincides with it. Not only is that not wrong, it is necesarry.

[Vincent]

morals = control.

we do what is 'good' and we don't do what is 'evil'. how do we determine what's good and evil? we base those decisions on our interpretations of social norms.

can i throw sometihng in.. can 'good' exist without evil? if not, does that proove that the notion of 'ridding the world of evil' is absurd?

[apathy maybe]

Didn't Nietzsche say something about "Beyond Good and Evil"? I haven't read any of his stuff though.

I actually thought of this my self the other day. I was wondering if "good" and "evil" really do exist. I am saying that they don't, except in cases such as murder. But even then, what if it was justified?

I think that the ideas of "good" and "evil" (or "bad") are created from the society in which you live. This is why communism is "bad" in the USA. But capitalism is "bad" in "communist" countries. And not just political ideologies. Take Sparta, compare to now. Take Islam and compare to Christianity (the weird fundamentalist type found particularly in the USA). The (weird fundamentalist type) Christian will view Islam as the work of Satan. But the Muslim obviously doesn't (and depending on the type may consider Christianity to be the work of Satan).

[che's long lost daughter]

The concept of good and evil all depends on and individual's morality. What is considered good by one maybe bad for another. Generally, there is no good and evil, what makes a certain thing good is if one thinks it is good and the same goes with evil. Morality is what differentiates one from the other.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

perception, all morality will lead to the same thing, a false idea that some things are good others are evil.

Capitalism is not 'evil', it is just a system we prefer and rationally belief to be less fair than socialism.

Why we need a new morality I am not convinced of.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24 2004, 01:45 PM
Didn't Nietzsche say something about "Beyond Good and Evil"? I haven't read any of his stuff though.


Well this conversation would most likely not have occured if not for Nietzsche, the idea of going beyond good and evil was unheard of before Nietzsche.

In fact all my views expressed here are based wholeheartedly on his views.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 07:40 PM
perception, all morality will lead to the same thing, a false idea that some things are good others are evil.

Capitalism is not 'evil', it is just a system we prefer and rationally belief to be less fair than socialism.

Why we need a new morality I am not convinced of.


'rational morals' are still morals

and some things are good for human society, others are bad; I don't think I should have to convince you of that.

[Mr. Krinklebein]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 07:42 PM
Well this conversation would most likely not have occured if not for Nietzsche, the idea of going beyond good and evil was unheard of before Nietzsche.

In fact all my views expressed here are based wholeheartedly on his views.
LMAO, a Nietzschean commie.

To make a long story short, I agree with perception, but part of me wants to agree with Che's long-lost daughter. ;)

This man is my long-lost father:

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Mr. [email protected] 25 2004, 09:30 AM
LMAO, a Nietzschean commie.



Who said I was a Communist?

Idiots like you throw words around in the hope of coming off well. Pick a topic, any topic in this forum and we can see whose ideas are confused.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 24 2004, 10:58 PM


'rational morals' are still morals

and some things are good for human society, others are bad; I don't think I should have to convince you of that.

Morality is never rational because not knowing what good and evil are, we cannot create a morality.

We can however create systems that aim to benefit the majority of people.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:50 PM
We can however create systems that aim to benefit the majority of people.
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy too.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I was talking about socialism, not a moral system.

[rahul]

corret!
there is no good,no bad, they are just created by human beings at the initial stages of devolopment of society.

but we are fixed to them

[The idealist]

Good and evil are spiced up versions of the idea of "positive impact" and "negative impact"

Eg Good = Positive impact +positive intent
Bad = Negative impact + negative intent

Times where people who tried to do good had a negative impact are twilight zones.
Those acts are, to other people, indistinguishable from Bad. Because they cannot positively confirm the persons intents as being good.

Bad intent seldom turns out positive impact, and are seen as bad anyway due to humanity's pessimisme.

[Lardlad95]

Morality is relative. For something to be Objectively Moral it would need to be moral in any and all given situations. It would have to be moral regardless of time, location, situation, etc.

Other than that I don't see there ever being anything that is trully morally right or morally wrong. It's all relative to the situation. Thus if you belive something to be morally good or evil than it's your duty to find a justification for this assertion seeing as how it probably is'nt true in and of it's self.

[imperator]

simply put, good is a doing what you think is right. evil is doing what you think is easy, regardless of what your principles tell you.

[iloveatomickitten]

A question (or questions) to the "morals are the basis of society and even if they are relative we need them" people - Assuming that morality is relative what compels you to abide by such morals? And how can you jutify one morality over the other as the basis of society? Certainly this destroys te legitimancy of all authority including the precious rule of the masses that some people on the site seem to worship.

[Fabi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 07:42 PM
Well this conversation would most likely not have occured if not for Nietzsche, the idea of going beyond good and evil was unheard of before Nietzsche.

In fact all my views expressed here are based wholeheartedly on his views.
bullshit, every little five-year-old fart can come up with that, and most probably do. I know that I most certainly did, and apparently a lot of other people did. Okay, saying bullshit might not sound nice, not meant to offend, but I think it is so ridiculous to assume that without Nietzsche we wouldn't be talking about this. Actually looking at early letters and essays from his school time that I read recently it is really funny to see how his criticism of modern schooling is pretty much the same as Chomsky's or Jiddu Krishnamurti's or John Taylor Gatto's or that of any other partially sane person.

In fact looking at people from Marilyn Manson to Sartre or Nietsche or Jim Morrison or whoever: They were or are not all that special, everything I have read or heard of them is so basic that any little kid should be able to understand it - better yet, every little kid should have already had the same thoughts on their own, regardless of what anyone else has said in the past.

About morals: The only evil in this world is the concept of good. I don't want to repeat what has been said before, but morals are ONLY good for creating hate, fear, submission, dependancy, unhappiness... Why is that so? Because morals are ideas, limitations - again: Some idiot/s trying to make the world they want it to be, instead of letting people be the way they are.

There might be morals or ethics, but they happen by default, there is no need to make them up or think about them - every little kid - and most of the few sane adults - can see that a philosophy or morals that arise from conflict cannot lead to anything but conflict.

By the way: If you happen to not act according to morals it does not necessarily mean that you are just substituting them with your own set of codes. Admittedly, that is what has happened a lot of times, in all areas of life, be it laws or art or music or religion - the reason for that, coming full circle, is that those people do not realize that morality itself is evil, but mistake the outside of the problem for the core. They keep the core and wrap it up with their new ideas, but again, there ideas will not be sufficiently just and adjusted to the whole of life.

Something that does not interfere with anyone's life and does not harm anyone cannot be wrong. It is quite easy to see that for anyone. Yet any set of morals so far has always condemned one or another part of perfectly harmless human behavior. Be it singing or dancing or masturbating or nudity, working on certain days, saying certain words etc. The same societies have also been very very busy (and still are), trying to force people to fit their rules. Women to cook, men to fight, people to choose jobs like robots in a factory, forced meditation and spirituality, genital mutilation, saying empty phrases.

As long as morals are based entirely on condemning harmless behavior and desires, it is not surprising at all that there will be those who will go crazy. All conflict grows from the smallest levels and as long as we stay violent/moral (those are synonymous after all) in our daily lives, telling people what to wear, how to keep their hair, how to treat people with pussies and how to act if you happen to have a dick, regardless of whether or not that treatment is adequate in the given situation, given the given person, we cannot expect to ever live in a peaceful society. Again, things any fourth-grader can understand, but apparently the older people get, and the longer they have been indoctrinated in one way or another, the harder it gets for them to be able to stop analyzing everything accodring to doctrine, instead look at it objectively.

Haven't slept in ages. What I am saying is perfectly correct, but I might not have communicated it in the most understandable manner. Then again, no matter how obvious, most people will not understand.

The other day I held a presentation for a class and the FIRST thing I said - and I repeated it several times - was that none of what was to follow was to offend anyone. Guess what the last thing was that one of them said when I was finished? "Thank you very much for telling all of us how STUPID we are!!!!" :rolleyes: If even the most obvious and direct sentences are completely ignored and distorted by ideology and morality, how can we expect to communicate at all, when still caught within those boundaries?

None of my views are based on anyone's. It just happens to be the case that a lot of famous people (and a lot that aren't) would have to agree with me. ;)

Okay, sorry, done. ;) :lol:

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 09:04 PM
A question (or questions) to the "morals are the basis of society and even if they are relative we need them" people - Assuming that morality is relative what compels you to abide by such morals?
Because they are the glue that hold society together.


And how can you jutify one morality over the other as the basis of society?

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want order as paramount, a feudal or authoritarian society would work best; your moral code will put emphasis on obedience and submission to authority. If economic productivity is what you're after, a liberal democratic capitalist model would be your choice; your moral code would put emphasis on property rights and the superiority of individual over society. If justice and equality is your goal, then a communist society would be your best bet; your moral code will stress cooperation, humanism, selflessness, and utilitarianism.


Certainly this destroys te legitimancy of all authority including the precious rule of the masses that some people on the site seem to worship.

The will of the masses has no authority, unless we give it authority. Nothing has authority unless we allow it.

[Fabi]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 31 2004, 10:34 PM
Because they are the glue that hold society together.
They are the glue that keeps people apart.
All the systems you have listed are equally violent. That is what systems are, after all: violence. Enforcing any kind of system, with any kind of morality, will always remain violent, from beginning to end. force, friction, conflict, violence, morals, systems - all the same.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

bullshit, every little five-year-old fart can come up with that, and most probably do.

Show me one child who has traced the words good and evil back to the origins, studied how these words are used as social constructs by the weak classes to suppress their 'superior' or dangerous peers and I will give you a million dollars.


Okay, saying bullshit might not sound nice, not meant to offend, but I think it is so ridiculous to assume that without Nietzsche we wouldn't be talking about this. Actually looking at early letters and essays from his school time that I read recently it is really funny to see how his criticism of modern schooling is pretty much the same as Chomsky's or Jiddu Krishnamurti's or John Taylor Gatto's or that of any other partially sane person.

You just try get published so if your ideas are so obvious/origanal etc. You think you can defend the same ideas you share with Comsky in a serious debate involving academics etc.?


In fact looking at people from Marilyn Manson to Sartre or Nietsche or Jim Morrison or whoever:

Morrison was heavily influenced by Nietzsche as you probably know. He was special because he did interesting things, he pushed boundaries and challenged society, that is special. Manson is not on the level of the rest.

Nietzsche and Sartre I do not even need to defend from anybody, if you cant see whats genius in their work you have no idea what they were trying to tell you. In other words you probably missed the point.




They were or are not all that special, everything I have read or heard of them is so basic that any little kid should be able to understand it - better yet, every little kid should have already had the same thoughts on their own, regardless of what anyone else has said in the past.

OK, I want you to explain to me what Sartre is talking about in Being and Nothingness or what his idea of self-deception is? How about what Nietsche meant by the Will to Power or else his ideas on politics, pretty straightforward eh! :P

I ask you to try answer these to the best of your ability.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Good and evil does not exist, at least in the way our common society represents them.

What is "good" for one person can be "evil" to another, so therefore there is no universal "good" or "evil".

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by Mr. [email protected] 25 2004, 09:30 AM
LMAO, a Nietzschean commie.

To make a long story short, I agree with perception, but part of me wants to agree with Che's long-lost daughter. ;)

This man is my long-lost father:
Damn..your long lost father is a good looking man. :P

[Fabi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:39 PM

Show me one child who has traced the words good and evil back to the origins, studied how these words are used as social constructs by the weak classes to suppress their 'superior' or dangerous peers and I will give you a million dollars.



You just try get published so if your ideas are so obvious/origanal etc. You think you can defend the same ideas you share with Comsky in a serious debate involving academics etc.?



Morrison was heavily influenced by Nietzsche as you probably know. He was special because he did interesting things, he pushed boundaries and challenged society, that is special. Manson is not on the level of the rest.

Nietzsche and Sartre I do not even need to defend from anybody, if you cant see whats genius in their work you have no idea what they were trying to tell you. In other words you probably missed the point.





OK, I want you to explain to me what Sartre is talking about in Being and Nothingness or what his idea of self-deception is? How about what Nietsche meant by the Will to Power or else his ideas on politics, pretty straightforward eh! :P

I ask you to try answer these to the best of your ability.
What does eloquence have to do with that? Oh, and how do you know Morrison was influenced by Nietzsche? He read Nietzsche, that's pretty much for sure, but how do you know those weren't his thoughts to begin with.

I think you pretty much missed the point of my post. There IS nothing special about the people I mentioned. And dismissing Manson, oh well, I don't care.

They are not hard to understand. Most of what they are talking about is truth. It doesn't take years of thinking to see truth, it takes just a few seconds of unclouded vision. Oh, and how come Chomsky himself has said on numerous occasions that most (if not all) of what he is saying can be understood by a little kid, yet adults - due to indoctrination - have trouble understanding even the tiniest injustice?

I am not planning on writing a book about the people mentioned earlier. That would be quite childish. And I really don't give a shit about the phrases you threw at me, because I do not know them all in context, and some only from German. Fact is that almost all philosophers (which was one of Popper's biggest criticisms) were really big in talking about very simple things in an overly complicated manner.

I guess you may have reacted as you did because I sort of seemed to have insulted you.

Come on, just listen to yourself - do you really think that Sartre and Chomsky were/are superior to any of us? If you do, I think it is YOU, who did not understand them... No one needs Nietzsche or Sartre or anyone else to think for them.

My points are not original, they are however obvious, and it is because they are so obvious that they cannot be original. Which is why I listed those people - the parallels between their work is so overwhelming. Why is that? Again - because they are talking about obvious things, that many people nevertheless fail to see.

Claiming that I did not understand what I have read of those authors, is rather childish. Sounds like a very easy way to justify not trying to look at my post objectively. It rarely happens that something I read needs further explanation.

Nietzsche noticed at an early age that university as well as school is not a place for study, but instead indoctrination - a thought that can be found when reading Chomsky, when listening to Manson, when looking at the lies and hipocrisy that Sartre exposes. Religion being only another part of that same problem of clinging to ideas and illusions, rather than what can be seen. No, of course all their work cannot be reduced to this, but much of it can, in various combinations, with various additions regarding the specific topic.

People are not unconventional for abandoning old rules and finding new rules, people are unconventional when abandoning old rules and finding no rules. That is so easy to understand. It does not take time to understand life - that would go totally against Sartre's understanding of freedom (or should - if it doesn't, he clearly made a mistake or we are misunderstanding him), understanding lies in the moment, beyond the good and evil of approaches we are being allowed access to. (Yeah, I know - no preposition at the then end of a sentence, but linguistics are only relevant as long as you don't take them seriously.)

Okay, done... Ready to get misinterpreted once again.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You seem to be also missing a very simple point, that is that a great mind to articulate what might seem like self-evident truths.

On a side note however explain what self-evident relevence Nietzsche's Will to Power and Sartre's ideas of perception are simple truths that we can all easily understand? And I do understand what you mean but it does nothing to tie up the fact that some people are just more intelligent, innovative, even genius that the rest of us.

Sartre and Nietzsche aren't superior to anybody at gardening or race car driving but they are superior at writing philosophy than the rest of us.

It's that simple.

[Fabi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 07:42 PM
Well this conversation would most likely not have occured if not for Nietzsche, the idea of going beyond good and evil was unheard of before Nietzsche.

In fact all my views expressed here are based wholeheartedly on his views.
It never was about whether or not articulative geniuses exist, really don"t know why you are bringing that up. It was about the fact that you claimed without Nietzsche we would very likely not be having this discussion - which is a ridiculous claim. I for one know that I never needed Nietzsche to help me think, and I also know that numerous other people have come to the same/similar conclusions as he did.

Your claim: We are too stupid to talk about this without input from great minds.
My observation: That is not true, any kid I talk to (actually letting the kid talk and think for themselves) can come up with and understand the concepts of Nietzsche.

With Nietzsche this can be seen also, looking at the fact that a lot of his philosophy is more or less linked directly to his life - and especially his thoughts when still at school, were no different from any other critically thinking kid, nowadays. What those kids will go on to accomplish and whether it will be philosophical writing or not is an entirely different story.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Ok I accept your point, perhaps a better way to put this is that Nietzsche popularized and gave the most impressive critique of morality.

[Raisa]

Good and evil is subjective. It exists just as much as any other opinion.

[Rasta Sapian]

I totally agree my friend, I beleive that everyone is essesially good if you get down to the heart, but I am not saying that there are not alot of idiots out there, now thats just logic. :huh:


hey happy 420, you guys should make me cappie killing sniper or something, eh!

[Kobbot 401]

Good and evil, it is pointless to debate what is what. You will never hear a murderer like Manson say what he did was evil and mean it. He'll say he is evil to get into other people heads, but he still will think he was the good guy on trial.

[Joe_Black]

Evil is treating people like 'things'

[lonelypieblues]

Good and evil are polar extremes of the same basic idea. What is good to one man might be evil to another. How can anyone determine what is good, right, or love? Same goes for evil, wrong, and hate. I have trouble seeing a difference between these things because in my eyes they are the same. They all end with the same results.

[lonelypieblues]

Good and evil are polar extremes of the same basic idea. What is good to one man might be evil to another. How can anyone determine what is good, right, or love? Same goes for evil, wrong, and hate. I have trouble seeing a difference between these things because in my eyes they are the same. They all end with the same results.

[lonelypieblues]

Good and evil are polar extremes of the same basic idea. What is good to one man might be evil to another. How can anyone determine what is good, right, or love? Same goes for evil, wrong, and hate. I have trouble seeing a difference between these things because in my eyes they are the same. They all end with the same results.

[fallen camarade]

My concept of Good and Evil has pretty much been covered by others before me. It's subjective, changes by culture....it's just not possible to pinpoint what the "correct" set of morality is. There is another topic called "morality" which is getting the exact same response as this one, so it's pretty much all repitition.

Good and Evil, like certain emotions and "entities", such as governments, do not actually exist in nature, and are thus not "real". They are not truly valid in the grand scheme of things. It seems that most everyone here acknowledges this, but regardless, we still have our strict opinions and feelings on things. A slight change can be made to one's life upon realizing that there is no "true" right and wrong, but not much else can be done on this. It is a good thing to know and understand, but when it comes time to come out of your thought and re-enter the real world, you are still going to go to your job, you are still going to allow certain feelings and situations effect you even though at the end of the day it is pointless, and you are still going to have certain thoughts and opinions that are also that of society and it's barriers.

To know there is no true "right" way to live, in the moral sense, is probably a necessary thought to have at some point, but the idea is not to become, for lack of better term, a complete asshole because of it. Considering nature, and what really "matters" and "exsists", basically, most of what we do on a daily basis is pointless, and we as intelectuals realize this. However, it is what we are, and how we live, and most of us could not survive for a week out in the woods in the middle of nowhere with no supplies...especially if we were to be rid of modern humanity from our thought process.

Point I'm making: Yes, there is no right and wrong, and they are just the creation of minds, but that realization is not going to send us out into the woods in pelts, gathering in tribes and creating hunter-gatherer societies. We adhere to these "useless" things, for a reason I can't put into english right now, but can slightly describe it by saying "we just do it".

If someone can better describe my point, that would be excellent, because I basically just babbled for a few paragraphs. Point generally made though....

[fallen camarade]

My concept of Good and Evil has pretty much been covered by others before me. It's subjective, changes by culture....it's just not possible to pinpoint what the "correct" set of morality is. There is another topic called "morality" which is getting the exact same response as this one, so it's pretty much all repitition.

Good and Evil, like certain emotions and "entities", such as governments, do not actually exist in nature, and are thus not "real". They are not truly valid in the grand scheme of things. It seems that most everyone here acknowledges this, but regardless, we still have our strict opinions and feelings on things. A slight change can be made to one's life upon realizing that there is no "true" right and wrong, but not much else can be done on this. It is a good thing to know and understand, but when it comes time to come out of your thought and re-enter the real world, you are still going to go to your job, you are still going to allow certain feelings and situations effect you even though at the end of the day it is pointless, and you are still going to have certain thoughts and opinions that are also that of society and it's barriers.

To know there is no true "right" way to live, in the moral sense, is probably a necessary thought to have at some point, but the idea is not to become, for lack of better term, a complete asshole because of it. Considering nature, and what really "matters" and "exsists", basically, most of what we do on a daily basis is pointless, and we as intelectuals realize this. However, it is what we are, and how we live, and most of us could not survive for a week out in the woods in the middle of nowhere with no supplies...especially if we were to be rid of modern humanity from our thought process.

Point I'm making: Yes, there is no right and wrong, and they are just the creation of minds, but that realization is not going to send us out into the woods in pelts, gathering in tribes and creating hunter-gatherer societies. We adhere to these "useless" things, for a reason I can't put into english right now, but can slightly describe it by saying "we just do it".

If someone can better describe my point, that would be excellent, because I basically just babbled for a few paragraphs. Point generally made though....

[fallen camarade]

My concept of Good and Evil has pretty much been covered by others before me. It's subjective, changes by culture....it's just not possible to pinpoint what the "correct" set of morality is. There is another topic called "morality" which is getting the exact same response as this one, so it's pretty much all repitition.

Good and Evil, like certain emotions and "entities", such as governments, do not actually exist in nature, and are thus not "real". They are not truly valid in the grand scheme of things. It seems that most everyone here acknowledges this, but regardless, we still have our strict opinions and feelings on things. A slight change can be made to one's life upon realizing that there is no "true" right and wrong, but not much else can be done on this. It is a good thing to know and understand, but when it comes time to come out of your thought and re-enter the real world, you are still going to go to your job, you are still going to allow certain feelings and situations effect you even though at the end of the day it is pointless, and you are still going to have certain thoughts and opinions that are also that of society and it's barriers.

To know there is no true "right" way to live, in the moral sense, is probably a necessary thought to have at some point, but the idea is not to become, for lack of better term, a complete asshole because of it. Considering nature, and what really "matters" and "exsists", basically, most of what we do on a daily basis is pointless, and we as intelectuals realize this. However, it is what we are, and how we live, and most of us could not survive for a week out in the woods in the middle of nowhere with no supplies...especially if we were to be rid of modern humanity from our thought process.

Point I'm making: Yes, there is no right and wrong, and they are just the creation of minds, but that realization is not going to send us out into the woods in pelts, gathering in tribes and creating hunter-gatherer societies. We adhere to these "useless" things, for a reason I can't put into english right now, but can slightly describe it by saying "we just do it".

If someone can better describe my point, that would be excellent, because I basically just babbled for a few paragraphs. Point generally made though....