The Concept of Good vs Evil

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I was just wondering how many people here believe in this concept. I personally don't believe in 'evil' forces or people. I believe everyone has their own set of priorities and their own unique perspective that they rationalize in their mind as being 'right'. I believe people can be going about things in the wrong manner or perhaps selfish manner but that doesn't mean these people are purposely spreading or thriving on evil.

Thoughts?

"Good" and "evil" are value judgements we make personally each and every one of us. Naturally, noone views themselves as evil. We can agree somewhat about what is evil and not, but that is then reached by consensus, not by an inherent quality in evil (or good).

The way I interpret it is that good is actions towards helping people, strengtening the good society between all people. And if those actions are prevalent, you get a good society where you help and get help. Whereas evil is shortsighted egoism, where the motivation is purely one own's interests. If those actions are prevalent, you get an alienated and distrustful society where you neither give nor receive help.

And that is my value judgement on the subject.

Peace
Dan

deadnothingbetter wrote:

sin is in the heart of the one who knows how to do good but doesn't do it

"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I believe you can view someone's choices as wrong and thoughtless of others without having to believe evil forces are what's driving them.

What is evil to you exactly? Where does it come from?

I think good and evil comes from a religious perspective only (or spiritual). Evil to me is something real, not an idea. For me, Satan would be responsible for the evil in the world.

If Satan does not exist, and if the other religions are wrong, than I would say that evil does not exist.

I think ethics would then come in to play to describe "good and evil." I believe there are universal truths. I do not believe that what is right for some may not be right for others. To judge it, we'd probably have to use some ethical framework like Rights, Justice, Utility, and Care.

Ahnimus wrote:

"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner

the "operational definition of sin" is simply not doing good when you know to do it.

bootlegger10 wrote:

I think good and evil comes from a religious perspective only (or spiritual). Evil to me is something real, not an idea. For me, Satan would be responsible for the evil in the world.

If Satan does not exist, and if the other religions are wrong, than I would say that evil does not exist.

I think ethics would then come in to play to describe "good and evil." I believe there are universal truths. I do not believe that what is right for some may not be right for others. To judge it, we'd probably have to use some ethical framework like Rights, Justice, Utility, and Care.

i beg to differ... i think we the humans are responsible for the evil in this world... just like we're responsible for a other great and good things we have done.

deadnothingbetter wrote:

the "operational definition of sin" is simply not doing good when you know to do it.

[size=+3]The sin assigned as an inner possession [/size][size=+5](the sin a person "knows")[/size][size=+3] is to be found in a history of reinforcement.[/size]

gue_barium wrote:

You have to say it in your own words.

Or you're a sinner!

Ok. "Sin"/"Good" are learned.

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok. "Sin"/"Good" are learned.

if you take the definition of sin like the skinner dude did then it is learned. but if you speak about the sin spoken in the bible then it is not learned... it's inherited. but of course you don't believe in the bible so why would it matter?

deadnothingbetter wrote:

so what? take a child, for instance. the child breaks a glass and is asked who broke the glass. the child will respond, "i don't know." who told the child it is wrong to break the glass?

how did the child learn to do good, or bad, in this case?

You are looking far too simplistically at human behavior. A child? What age is this child? Its not a neonate, not a child that just formed a brain inside the womb. The child has already been witness to billions upon billions of bits of information which have been accumulated by its brain and used to form patterns of how to operate within the world. That world consists mainly of their immediate care-givers and siblings. It expands from there, with a googolplex of more information.

Even a 1 year old child has learned that breaking things elicits a negative response from their care-giver. It has nothing to do with innate knowledge. Pick up a book (not the Bible) and learn. There are things which are arguably innate, however, those things are typically drives. The sex drive, hunger, social acceptance, etc... and those basic drives facilitate the learned behavior. You seem to be taking all of this for granted, which is typical of an education obtained from a 2,000 textbook.

deadnothingbetter wrote:

i'm not talking about a neonate here... a neonate wouldn't be able to even grab a cup at that time... talk about thinking simplistic here.... geesh.

Huh? It was a question. How am I supposed to know what you mean?

i hear all that you have to say and boy you're absolutely right. but that doesn't make me wrong either... you're completely missing my point. do you believe we have a conscience?

Yes, we have a conscience, but it's not a mystical force. It's part of the brain. See the brain is compartmentalized. When you feel the urge to snack on those chips and your 'conscience' is saying "Don't do it" that two parts of the brain in competition. Likely, the Frontal Lobe (conscience) vs the Limbic System (basic desires). The prefrontal cortex of the frontal lobe is what separates us from animals (mostly). So it's reasonable to think this is where 'conscience' resides, as it's assumed animals don't have such a thing.

The brain requires input, it learns, and depends on information. Thus the 'conscience' is supported by 'a history of reinforcement'.