Good and Evil

[Lightbringer]

They are two sides of one. Dualism.

Agreed!  While such an opinion would result in a poll vote for "Good and evil are just a matter of perspective", there is a difference in this argument from most.  Most people are happy to subscribe to a nihilistic belief system because they feel crushed under the weight of responsibility.  We try to control things which are beyond our ability to control  and so taking responsibility for "evil" events piles endless feelings of guilt and shame onto our shoulders.  "I couldn't stop my friend from feeling sad/my parents from getting divorced/etc.  I could have done SOMETHING!"  We're far too hard on ourselves.  This is especially true at the subconscious level where decisions are made about how we think and what we will think about which we don't even consciously witness.  The only way to remain sane that occurs to people is to eliminate evil (and with it good) from the dictionary.  No good and evil, no weight on our shoulders.  Unfortunately this is all in vane because we don't truly deal with our problem, we only bury it.  This is why people react SO angrily against those who say there is a good and evil.  They are being reminded of every evil thing they feel responsible for which they were happy to ignore until it was shoved in their faces.  Again this brings up guilt and shame and so the burying of the problem has not been solved.  It has only been sealed up, waiting to explode the next time it is brought to the surface.

Obviously this "burden" metaphor hints at another solution: lighten your load!  Accept that you can not control everything and that while your heart has always been in the right place, you're only human and can only do so much at a time.  The only thing you are responsible for is your own thoughts and actions.  Every single one.  Accept the good and the bad ones and when everything is accepted, the distinction is unnecessary.  It was only necessary before because good events did not make you feel guilty but bad ones did.  If neither do, the need to distinguish is gone and everything just is.

Hopefully this has brought the contradictory and counter-productive nature of our thought patterns to light for someone.  Or all of you, I certainly can't complain if this helps 50 people "release their burdens" as the Buddha might say, now can I?

[Falsifica]

Thanks, finally someone agrees, or from another perspective: I finally made a quote someone actually agreed to. : )


Yet we can't stop using these words in everyday life.

[Faijer]

Most people are happy to subscribe to a nihilistic belief system because they feel crushed under the weight of responsibility.  We try to control things which are beyond our ability to control  and so taking responsibility for "evil" events piles endless feelings of guilt and shame onto our shoulders.  "I couldn't stop my friend from feeling sad/my parents from getting divorced/etc.  I could have done SOMETHING!"  We're far too hard on ourselves. This is especially true at the subconscious level where decisions are made about how we think and what we will think about which we don't even consciously witness.  The only way to remain sane that occurs to people is to eliminate evil (and with it good) from the dictionary.  No good and evil, no weight on our shoulders.

The elimination of the concepts of good and evil is not a dismissal of moral responsibility, but a dismissal of their usefulness as descriptive terms on the basis of their polarised and 'subjective' nature. The terms, morally permissible, moral duty, and moral prohibition are far more useful in describing acts, and further subdivision along different dimensions is also possible. The use of 'good' and 'evil', as I have repeated ad naseum, is a fictional hyperbole which turns what is being said into a form of propaganda.

[Lightbringer]

The elimination of the concepts of good and evil is not a dismissal of moral responsibility, but a dismissal of their usefulness as descriptive terms on the basis of their polarised and 'subjective' nature. The terms, morally permissible, moral duty, and moral prohibition are far more useful in describing acts, and further subdivision along different dimensions is also possible. The use of 'good' and 'evil', as I have repeated ad naseum, is a fictional hyperbole which turns what is being said into a form of propaganda.

You've been posting the truth as the Lord God Faijer sees it for 6 pages now.  You take it upon yourself to "correct" someone's mere two cents interjection when they have no interest in discussing.  Who are you to know when something of this scale is a correct statement or not? Perhaps if you spent as much time reading as you did writing you would learn something form others.  People would be willing to converse with you in a constructive matter if you had the respect to not cram your views down every reader's throat.  Unfortunately, you seem to see your aggressive suppression of all others views as proof of your wisdom when really no one wants to engage you.  Those with knowledge worth knowing don't have to convince anyone, that's the beauty of truth.  It resonates with people.

That's all I have to say and I won't be seen in this thread again.  If you choose to respond, I hope your childish posturing makes you feel better but you might as well shout at a brick wall.

[Faijer]

Your ad hominem tickles me, but it doesn't deal with the argument. Congrats.

[Steve]

(I hope this post makes sense, as it's 3am and I just woke up from a brief sleep and will be going back soon. If it doesn't make sense, then just ignore it ^_^)

The terms, morally permissible, moral duty, and moral prohibition...
...
The use of 'good' and 'evil', as I have repeated ad naseum, is a fictional hyperbole which turns what is being said into a form of propaganda.

Problem being that the terms "morally permissible", "moral duty", and "moral prohibition" are likewise subjective to the individual's or groups' own morals, as well as being just other words to describe the same thing as "good" and "evil". They are synonyms and merely changing the words used does not, as Lightbringer said, change the situation.

As for propoganda, anything can be propoganda as long as it's portrayed in whatever light is neccessary for the person portraying it to get others to think of it in that manner. For instance, I could claim the Tickle Me Elmo doll teaches children to enjoy molesting others and to even laugh if they're ever molested, and without even using the terms "good", "evil", or "moral" anything I've portrayed the same concepts by using another term which is considered a "negative" (perverse, disgusting, shocking, etc) in the minds of the many and associating it to the actions.

The words are just markers to describe conditions that stem from personal/group beliefs, but that does not mean they are invalid as terms used to descibe those personal/group views.

You've been posting the truth as the Lord God Faijer sees it for 6 pages now.

I'm guessing you never joined debates in school? He didn't agree with your portrayal of "good" and "evil" as being only representative of "guilt and shame", so he said something about it.

~Steve

[Faijer]

Problem being that the terms "morally permissible", "moral duty", and "moral prohibition" are likewise subjective to the individual's or groups' own morals, as well as being just other words to describe the same thing as "good" and "evil".

Not entirely the same, but I do concede your point. What I was trying to point out is that there are significantly more useful terms than good and evil, because...

As for propoganda, anything can be propoganda as long as it's portrayed in whatever light is neccessary for the person portraying it to get others to think of it in that manner. For instance, I could claim the Tickle Me Elmo doll teaches children to enjoy molesting others and to even laugh if they're ever molested, and without even using the terms "good", "evil", or "moral" anything I've portrayed the same concepts by using another term which is considered a "negative" (perverse, disgusting, shocking, etc) in the minds of the many and associating it to the actions.

While you're right in the Tickle Me Elmo example, good and evil are almost predisposed to be used in a manner similar to propaganda.

[The Circle Of Life]

Propaganda
Etymology:
    New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV
Definition:
1capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause  ; also : a public action having such an effect

[Steve]

good and evil are almost predisposed to be used in a manner similar to propaganda.

Well, it's difficult not to use them as propoganda because their main-public-use definitions do strongly connotate "you want to do these things" and "you don't want to do these things" from a societal viewpoint. From a personal viewpoint that connotation can be removed and simply see good and evil as, in basic concept, "helping others" and "hurting others" respectively, and each person decides for themselves whether each is allowable in any given situation or not, based on that person's own code of ethics rather than because "my mommy told me not to" style of thinking.

~Steve

[Tankdown]

I believe there is a good and evil, but to say what they are other then the definition is impossible to do.

[Watchtower]

From a personal viewpoint that connotation can be removed and simply see good and evil as, in basic concept, "helping others" and "hurting others" respectively, and each person decides for themselves whether each is allowable in any given situation or not, based on that person's own code of ethics rather than because "my mommy told me not to" style of thinking.

This is why I prefer the terms "Benevolent," "Malevolent," "Altruistic," "Sadistic," and things like that to describe actions and intentions.  Even defining good and evil as helping and hurting others can be confusing because there are times in mainstream morality when it is believed that hurting someone is good, and helping someone is bad (never mind alternative moral stances).  If you use the descriptive terms to describe actions and intentions, and then the moral terms to describe a moral stance regarding those actions and intentions, you avoid a lot of confusion.