Talk:Good and evil

Zoroastrianism

As I understand it, good/evil as a dualistic relationship originated in Zoroastrianism a good 5 centuries before it shows up in Western philosophy. Maybe someone who knows about Zoroastrianism should add that in the origins section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.90.73 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Research issues

There is numerous issues with this article. I attempted to add sources however much of the article seems to contain statements concluded from a list of sources but without any specific source for the statement. Each statement has to have a source. This article needs a major rewrite.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Empireheart (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm wondering how useful the lead image is as an illustration of "good," given that there's a distinction between good and innocence (the same image is, more appropriately, the lead in that article). May I suggest George Frederic Watts's good samaritan, or Rembrandt's? Chick Bowen 01:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the lead image has been changed a couple of times since I wrote this, so my comment no longer applies. Chick Bowen 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename

This article should be renamed to Goodness, because there's already article about Evil.--Mladifilozof (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Hobbes' definition

Does anyone else think that the definition of good and evil given in Leviathan deserves a spot on this page? From Leviathan (book)#Part I: Of Man:

"But whatsoever is the object of any man's appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good; and the object of his hate and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil, and contemptible are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of good and evil to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostmo (talk • contribs) 06:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Manichaean paranoia

Please partake in the discussion whether Manichaean paranoia should be deleted or not on this page (WP:AfD/Manichaean paranoia (2nd nomination)! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Good/Evil Paradox

On the one hand there is the ancient belief that...

• Good will always ultimately triumph over evil,

And on the other hand is the apparent fact that...

• Evil has the power to do both evil actions and good actions.

So if one is "evil" and can do as one pleases, while one who is "good" is limited to doing only good actions, doesn't this mean that evil is, by definition, more powerful than good? How can good ever triumph over evil if evil is more powerful than good?

• And shouldn't this "power paradox" be included in the article on "Good and Evil"?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal good?

"It is often claimed that aboriginal peoples never lost this sort of view - anthropological linguistics studies links between their languages and the ecosystems in which they lived and which gave rise to their knowledge distinctions. Very often, environmental cognition and moral cognition were not distinguished in these languages - offenses to nature were like those to other people, and Animism reinforced this by giving nature "personality" via myth. Anthropological theories of value explore these questions."

Might it not be interesting to know who makes these claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.148.158 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On the Genealogy of morals

Why isn't Fredrick Nietzsche work not mentioned here? His book was one third dealing with the good/evil problem and one of his most influential works. It at-least deserves a paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.212.89 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a discussion.

I posted a reasoned thread in this discussion.

This is not a discussion, this is a censored joke.

This website deserves the reputation it has earned and lost a contributor.