Does evil exist, or is it just the absence of good?
>>784621
neither exist
>kickflips out of the thread
Einstein, is that you?
A lack of good or evil would just be a neutral stance.
>>784621
They are just spooks anon.
>>784621
Evil is twisted good, perverted good, broken good. Evil is the absence of good, as darkness is the absence of light. Neither evil nor darkness are created things. And as darkness flees the light, so does evil flee from the good.
Evil/Good/Justice/Injustice ,these are all matters of perception and point of view.
One is characterized by the absence of the other but in reality neither can exist if an individual is not there to observe it.
A man who kills his own parents is evil and unjust from a 3rd point of view.
But from his own stand point,he is just and good.
Maybe his parents were psychos,maybe the man is himself a psycho. His hands were tied because everything that brought him to the point of fratricide can be boiled down to cause and effect. In lieu,what he did can be justified but it falls upon to someone's morals to decide whether that man was justified in his actions.
Hope I explained well.
>universal morality
>>784621
if an asteroid destroyed the earth tomorrow, would evil still exist the day after?
"no."
>>784621
Neither exist in more than an abstract sense. Human actions can be judged to be good or evil on a variety of criteria, but since these are often socially constructed it's largely a matter of convention as to whether you define the "zero" on your scale as "maximum evil"-- implying that evil is just a lack of good-- or "neither good nor evil" -- implying that evil is "negative good".
>>785417
Demons are asteroid proof, Anon. Evil would still exist.
good and evil are objects within a moral system
they are opposites of morality, so that the application of morality can change the extension of good and evil
in this way application of morality have priority over the the definition of good and evil but not their nature
>>785417
>God made no other worlds of men other than earth
s h i g g y
The concept of good and evil is a construct of nature. For example, we see murder as evil since it causes human death, which inhibits the growth of humankind. Since expanding humanity is our biological goal, murder is seen as evil by the average man.
There is no such thing as true evil except for hell. Humans are always good, although some less than others.
>>785986
how do explain humans committing evil actions then?
Interestingly, Gnostics believe god didn't create earth, but that a separate, evil force did it, and the ultimate goal is to leave the material world of evil and return to the true good, which is god.
>>785979
There is no good and evil in nature, city boy.
>>785979
*tips fedora*
>>784621
phenomenologically evil exists as much as good since it can be deeply felt by the individual as an emotion grasping his whole being.
>>784621
Humans differentiate things through opposites and contrast. Distinction is a human concept we use to create identities.
So not only is evil just as much a presence as good but it is necessary for good to even exist.
>>786036
He can't, with that worldview. Nor are the gnostics correct. God made the creation, and man and woman, and God said that it was good.
For the gnostics to say Not God created the world, and that it is Not Good, is obviously in direct contrast to what God says.
>>786159
Only good existed for an eternity before the creation, and only good will exist for an eternity after this creation is wrapped up.
So no, this false dualism is false.
>>784621
Good and evil don't exist. Basically things just happen and people prescribe the title of good or evil to people/places/things. In certain times and places, slavery was completely accepted but now its considered evil. There's no magical positive and negative energy that flows around making people good or evil. That's the same reason I don't believe in karma. There's no guy with a checks and balances ledger in the sky rewarding the good and punishing the bad. Hitler gassed 6 million heebs and the closest he came to paying for his "evil" was having to put a bullet in his head.
>>786159
This is correct, sort of, but misses the very important point that evil is not the same as not-good. Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals shows amply how evil is not even necessarily the opposite of good; historical contingency can mean that the opposite of good is considered to be bad rather than evil, etc. Without a not-good however, there is no good. And without a not-evil, there is no evil. The way up and the way down are one and the same. Those who are arguing about the "reality" of good and evil as if they are independent entities are missing the point, rather they are reciprocal valuations humans in specific cultural situations simultaneously give to everything when they address them in anything. When you say what is good, you are also saying what is evil. And when you say what is evil, you are also saying what is good. But that only holds true as long as you value evil as not-good and good as not-evil, which history teaches us that many men do not.
Can anyone explain what good is?
>>786306
God is good.
>>786331
I agree. Odin is good.
>>786041
He's talking about instincts dipshit, are you saying instincts don't exist. We see murderers as evil because the dudes who didn't were murdered.
>>786343
You know Odin wasn't particularly ' good', he was wise.
Baldr was the good one I think
