THE definition of GOOD and EVIL?

[blight]

I have been writing a book and I have come to a point where I need a conflict a villain no not a villin the protein but an adversary of my “hero”. Then I ran into a problem I truly cannot say I understand with all my philosophy and theology – what good is and what evil is. Why is he/she/it evil? Why do they choose or born to be this way or do these things etcetera? What is evil to start we understand good for the things we find pleasurable but in other thoughts we find that these pleasurable things can be of ways of evil that being like sex. A very touchy subject matter to most Americans a little more open-minded are the Europeans on the subject but just the same. That being said for example if we go toward the all too common Christian route an example of good and evil per say.

What is it to kill another instead to murder another? What really defines this? Are you avenging the death of your wife is this then killing? Or is it murder because you take the life of another from their family? Making more or less the eye for an eye theme. Or another example from a different approach would be to say to kill for food or is it murder because you are still taking a life? How extreme is it?

So the question in its simplest form I can come up with is what is TRULY evil and what motivates one or something to be this way (apart from the flawed idea of the first sin)?

RULES OF THIS TOPIC
First off- these are the rules of this discussion as I see fit to attempt to stop meaningless badgering and false insight toward a goal or an idea.

1. BE OPEN-MINDED!!! Proof, not opinion. Your argument needs proof to be a fact- so if you do not have proof to show that your opinion is a fact then I recommend you leave this discussion before a moderator deletes your from the forum or thread by the least for you not being open-minded.

2. Reasonable arguments. Do not throw in the idea that because you are catholic you are right. We all come from different backgrounds and don’t be a pompous fool to think that because you come from that background that you know where that background even comes from. How much about the REAL history do you know not of what you are told- but for this example at play can you read Hebrew? Or by that matter Greek?

3. Descript examples. Be descriptive make sure you are clear of what you mean to not start a flame war or argument.

4. This is not a debate whatsoever to prove one idea wrong from another- this is the attempt to gather the ideas that there are in place and then find the fallacies of the ideas given to attempt to find something that even at this extent may not be able to understand at this point in our adaptation of this world.

Post and be friendly please.

[fredjacksonsan]

Wow, actual rules.


First, in the story, the villain doesn't necessarily have to be evil, but rather to just have opposing views or motivations to the hero.


I think that true evil is when there is forethought, planning, and orderly action with intent to do what is considered wrong, on a continuing basis. Kidnapping someone in order to torture them falls in this category. Avenging the death of a family member, if the person is otherwise law abiding, etc, is different in some cases (see below)

Or there can be a gradual decline/descent into evil, like the street kid that gets into a little trouble, then a little more, then more and more as time goes on until he's a drug kingpin or whatever as an adult. Sometimes this sort of behavior is a result of just having to survive, but IMO in today's society you always have a choice.


Kill vs murder. Your car slides off of an icy road and you hit someone and they die. Killed. You're driving your car and aim for that bastard that punched you last week and he dies. That's murder. Murder indicates that you planned it and/or did it intentionally. But then the law (US) says there's manslaughter if it wasn't premeditated. I'd say it goes to motive of the person doing the killing. If you intended to kill them, it's murder. But an accident is just that.

Revenge. Curiously, this might depend on the culture as to whether it's right or wrong. In some societies, it is expected for a family member to avenge a wrongful death, regardless of the law. In others it is strictly the provenance of the government to kill the killers. I'll stay away from the debate of whether capital punishment is right or wrong.

[blight]

check these out 3 pages on one and the other so far two pages- the turbo doge guys are argying if it belogns in their forum :I

http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=117610

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/046475.html

[KustmAce]

Toksin - good
Toskin - evil

throw some filler material in there and ya got six chapters.

[Knifeblade]

good and evil are determined within the environment that causally effects a person's action, subsequent to the judgement of others who place opinions about it, which then is expanded to their environment which places them in a defined response to the action, which is determined later by the environment that they are acted [or acting] upon.

Basic behavioral theory, Skinner/Wagnerian quotes.

Essentially, those who opine good/evil into a person's actions are merely reacting to their influences [environment] either at the time [cause-effect at base level] or through behavioraL CONDITIONING. At a larger scale, society as a group performs in a similar manner, and as society provides "rules" of conduct acceptable for all, they are merely espousing their conditioning from other's conditioning, etc. etc.

[MonsterBengt]

First off, you have to believe in a religion or ideology to have something to define whats good and evil with. Otherwise you'll be what I call a villa-fascist, and judge it by your own oppinions. Myself, I don't like the the whole idea of a strict Good vs. Evil world, only Intelligense vs. Ignorancy, oppinion vs oppinion and ofcourse everyone vs. my religion.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by MonsterBengt

First off, you have to believe in a religion or ideology to have something to define whats good and evil with. Otherwise you'll be what I call a villa-fascist, and judge it by your own oppinions. Myself, I don't like the the whole idea of a strict Good vs. Evil world, only Intelligense vs. Ignorancy, oppinion vs oppinion and ofcourse everyone vs. my religion.

Hmmmm...I don't think that religion is required to understand good and evil. I think we would all agree that tying someone up and torturing them to death is evil, and that running into a burning house to save someone is good.

Now I'd agree that there are warped individuals out there who don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people.

Aren't good and evil decided culturally?

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Hmmmm...I don't think that religion is required to understand good and evil. I think we would all agree that tying someone up and torturing them to death is evil, and that running into a burning house to save someone is good.

Now I'd agree that there are warped individuals out there who don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people.

Aren't good and evil decided culturally?

No, you need religion to define Good and Evil. Since a totally non religious person, as in a person who believe in "science" would say that it does not exist. Only people with different cultures, yes. My belief says, that all people are born with an almost plain brain. If raised with love and care, he'll be loving and caring. If raised amongst hatred, he'll be filled with hatred. Because the brain is nothing but a very very complicated computer, not a divine keeper of a "soul". The brain itself thrives for but one thing; to feed the senses and feelings. Say you want to be happy, you do what makes you happy. Say you're hungry, then you eat. What makes you happy and what you want to eat is something you've been rasied with, or might have in your genes, you cannot have simply chosen it, since a computer has no free will. Ones and zeros can't "get a mind of its own" and create a third number, cause there is just ones and zeroes in the human brain. Pulse, no pulse. Electricity, no electricity. Then if you, like a religious person who has been rasied with a defination of Evil, hate a person for doing something, it's like you hate your dog for not helping out cleaning the house, or hate your room for being so cold. It's when religion tries to blend with science, atheism and agnosticism this questions occur.

[fredjacksonsan]

Good points. But if true, then why don't we see societies where torture and killing are acceptable? In ancient times there were several cultures where the religion said this was acceptable.

Also, you can hear about some people that realize a bad situation (parents on drugs, or beatings in the home) and remove themselves from it, so even if they were raised in that situation they realized it is bad and make a choice not to be involved with it.

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Good points. But if true, then why don't we see societies where torture and killing are acceptable? In ancient times there were several cultures where the religion said this was acceptable.

Also, you can hear about some people that realize a bad situation (parents on drugs, or beatings in the home) and remove themselves from it, so even if they were raised in that situation they realized it is bad and make a choice not to be involved with it.

Then he realizes that it's not good for himself, not for the ideal of good and bad. Then he feed another need, to relieve himself of what he's feeling bad about.

And we don't see torture as something acceptable since we follow the ideals set up by the mind itself; Torture is bad because it hurts. And it hurts because the body is taking some kind of damage bla bla. We simply are more sympathetic nowadays.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by MonsterBengt

Then he realizes that it's not good for himself, not for the ideal of good and bad. Then he feed another need, to relieve himself of what he's feeling bad about.

And we don't see torture as something acceptable since we follow the ideals set up by the mind itself; Torture is bad because it hurts. And it hurts because the body is taking some kind of damage bla bla. We simply are more sympathetic nowadays.

Ok so he realizes it's NOT GOOD for himself, so it's bad for him. Couldn't this individual come to think (independently of religion) that it is wrong (evil) to torture people?

So torture is bad because it hurts. People understand pain and so inflicting pain (since they've experienced it themselves) is not a nice thing to do.

So following these two statements, I would think that people would be able to realize the difference between good and evil independently of religion. It's just that without religion they would not necessarily use those words to describe it. Right and Wrong.

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Ok so he realizes it's NOT GOOD for himself, so it's bad for him. Couldn't this individual come to think (independently of religion) that it is wrong (evil) to torture people?

So torture is bad because it hurts. People understand pain and so inflicting pain (since they've experienced it themselves) is not a nice thing to do.

So following these two statements, I would think that people would be able to realize the difference between good and evil independently of religion. It's just that without religion they would not necessarily use those words to describe it. Right and Wrong.

But to define an act as evil, then it has to be based on something that cannot have occured in the mind of the person who comitted the "evil deed". And that is that he did it because he is evil. Now in reality, he did it for his own winning, and this spins onto a philosophy i've currently forgotten the name of, but its that selfishness and being kindhearted also cannot exist, since its all about doing something for your own winning.

But all this still can be avoided if you avoid using the terms "evil/bad/wrong" since it has totally different meaning to religious and non-religious people. Sure, you can call yourself an atheist and still believe in good and evil people, but then you haven't got the idea of atheism. A christian defines the terms as something you choose to do, in sole purpose of hurting people. Most people define it as mean or selfish, wich is like the christian defination except that these people don't have any reason for their defination. Me, i define them as an act of ignorancy, an act that does not apply with society and won't work out if everyone would do so.

[fredjacksonsan]

An atheist doesn't belive in God. But they could still know what is nice to do to someone and what is not.

Everyone is self serving - that is, doing something for their own winning, or being selfish - to some extent. It's just that some people believe that doing something against someone else isn't wrong; also, there are different amounts of "wrong" that can be done...pushing someone out of the way in a movie line, not so bad. Pushing someone over a cliff so you can see better, obviously bad.

Here's an example - if you think about it, both atheists and deists should have the same view about murder, but for different reasons. A deist believes they will be punished for murder once they die. But an atheist isn't afraid of that. Rather, and atheist should realize that if they kill someone, by their own beliefs they are taking away the only chance that someone had to live. Food for thought.

Anyway I agree that a newly born child is a blank slate, ready to be filled with information. I can see how someone raised in a brutal environment would think that certain things are ok to do; but there has to be SOMETHING that they know doing is wrong. Take an organized crime figure. They may get to the top by being brutal, killing, stealing, whatever. But there are some things they know are wrong to do.

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

An atheist doesn't belive in God. But they could still know what is nice to do to someone and what is not.

Everyone is self serving - that is, doing something for their own winning, or being selfish - to some extent. It's just that some people believe that doing something against someone else isn't wrong; also, there are different amounts of "wrong" that can be done...pushing someone out of the way in a movie line, not so bad. Pushing someone over a cliff so you can see better, obviously bad.

Here's an example - if you think about it, both atheists and deists should have the same view about murder, but for different reasons. A deist believes they will be punished for murder once they die. But an atheist isn't afraid of that. Rather, and atheist should realize that if they kill someone, by their own beliefs they are taking away the only chance that someone had to live. Food for thought.

Anyway I agree that a newly born child is a blank slate, ready to be filled with information. I can see how someone raised in a brutal environment would think that certain things are ok to do; but there has to be SOMETHING that they know doing is wrong. Take an organized crime figure. They may get to the top by being brutal, killing, stealing, whatever. But there are some things they know are wrong to do.

What are we arguing about again?

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by MonsterBengt

What are we arguing about again?

I forgot. Some guy is writing a book or something.


edit: he wanted to know why his bad guy was evil. I guess he has plenty of ideas now!!