Talk:Good and evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

AfD: Manichaean paranoia[edit]

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[edit]

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?

How would one characterize the conflict between the lion and the lamb? It's good for the lion to devour the lamb... yet evil at the same time.Thus Spake Good (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"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 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Freud's contribution[edit]

There should be a major section on Freud's contribution to the idea of the superego (force of destruction) and id (force of renewal and life). It is the closest thing we have of scientific confirmation of the ancient religious doctrines of the struggle between good and evil. (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Automate archiving?[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On the Genealogy of morals[edit]

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 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Origing of Good and evil.[edit]

Why is Zoroastriansm not mentioned at all? The 400 bc date given in this article is beaten by the concept of good and evil in Zoroastrianism where, good ( Ahura Mazda) fights evil (Ahriman) and good eventually prevails. This article needs a lot of work done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruthA (talkcontribs) 15:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Expert needed[edit]

This article needs the attention of an expert in the field. Narssarssuaq (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DELETED: Anti-goodness theories[edit]

Choice of lesser goods theories[edit]

Sometimes more thorough attempts will also be made to describe the origin of evil and how it might tend to come into existence as well. Those attempts will sometimes fall under the category of describing as false various forms of goodness. Among some schools of thought,[citation needed] the idea is put forth that all evil comes from the excessive pursuit of goods of lesser value, at the expense of goods of greater value. For instance, greed derives from the pursuit of gain for one's self, generally a good thing, at the expense of others, generally a bad thing. Overeating may result from the exchange of momentary pleasure derived from the eating of food, for the greater good of long-term health. In psychology similar processes might occur in the formation of various types of addictions. No particular thing is thus considered to be intrinsically bad automatically, but rather evil will come from the pursuit of various goods in excess, to the expense or the neglect of other more important ones. Narssarssuaq (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Does this article need a severe haircut?Timpo (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Like Topsy, this article just grows and grows - Time for the shears perhaps? Much of it seems to be uncited, unverifiable (at least by me) and IMHO, claptrap.This should be about the distinction between positive and negative forces since there is already a clutch of better articles about the forces themselves, such as

Any comments - add below this with indents ('edit this section and start line with a colon: I think, although there may perhaps be a more elegant way?) Timpo (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is a lack of a consensus on the definition of Good and Evil to begin with: You refer to them as 'forces', which would then indeed have already enough said about them individually in separate articles, and then the primary focus should of course be their relationship. Opposing? Benignly interacting? Chaotically interacting, etc. But the article starts with a presumably horizontal model: EVIL<---->GOOD, and defines both somewhat vaguely as both the direction and the location on the linear model. If that is the true definition, then there need be no more Relationship between Good and Evil than there is between Hot and Cold, which are but two different names for the same object; but labeled according to their place on a scale. The rest of the article can then be only about their historical interpretations and observations, as we should expect to see in an article entitled Hot and Cold. Then the whole article could be trimmed and added to the articles about the 'states' of being themselves. Furthermore, the definition could be decidedly Absolute, which would require a longer, more philosophical article whose only references could be historical philosophers and the bias be necessarily that of one particular philosophy. The alternative would be no philosophy at all, and would hardly be an article on Good and Evil as much as Good and Evil Not Actually Being Talked About But Getting Very Close to the Topic While Skirting Anything Anyone Actually Believes. (talk) .C 8:36 AM Sunday, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Absolute Good vs. Variant Evil[edit]

In the first paragraph of the article, Good and Evil are defined as a philosophical imaginary location or direction on a linear spectrum of morality. This, as I shall attempt to prove hereafter, is both an inadequate definition and a fallacious one.

In the article entitled 'Evil', evil is defined as Profound Immorality; an extreme lack of adherence to a moral or ethical code. This second definition would suggest the spectrum is vertical, like temperature or degree of light, a measure not of simple direction or location, but a theoretical value on an indifferent scale; suggesting evil is the absence of or deviation from Good. Good being necessarily both proper and infinite in its theoretical value but not in actual testable value, again a parallel to heat(I have not proved this yet; see Plato's Form of the Good, as well as second paragraph for evidence). Any measure of evil, then, would and must be deviant, changing, and imprecise in its character, being anything that is not Good, while Evil itself in Absolute form could be correctly defined as a direction on a vertical linear scale; the direction which is not Good. But Good may not be described as a direction on the vertical scale or as any value measurable on such a scale. It must be defined only as Absolute, just as Truth is absolute. Either you are Right, and have One Conclusion, that will be congruous to All Right conclusions of the same matter and scale, or you are Wrong, and may have any number of the infinite possible mistakes, as anything that is not the right answer is wrong, and though some conclusions seem to be 'more wrong' than others, all those which are Not Actually Completely True. Anything that is not Good is evil.

Whether or not the standard of Good is Fixed Eternally is a subject for another debate, but it is logically necessary that it be 'fixed' in a specific iota of hypothetically motionless time(or no-time), according to the definition of time(extremely simplified, if anything is happening, time is passing). Therefore, in a state of no-time the nature of good is fixed and necessarily(whether temporarily or no)Absolute. Even if the nature of Good is determined by social mores it must be absolute in any given time frame.

But Good, like Truth, is not, and must not be variant. If the concept of Good were Really and Actually to Change, according to the mores of Society or any other temporal standard, the problem this author has in conflict with the definition of Good is one of pure semantics. It comes to this: If one talks of ethics, or any moral philosophy, in reference to the concept of Good one must either be talking of that which is Ultimately desirable, efficient, superior, excellent, correct, true, et cetera, or talking of another concept. If the latter is the case and one takes the term 'good' and applies it variably, then one must come up with a new term for the Ultimately Ethically Proper, or be hopelessly lost in describing It.

Thus, in the definition of Good and Evil, Good must needs be defined as an Absolute, while Evil must needs be defined as variant. Such that a person may be 'slightly evil' or 'very evil' according to their few or many incongruities with the Absolute Standard of Good, Whatever that may Actually be, but a person cannot be 'slightly good' or 'very good' insomuch as they cannot conform any More to a fixed standard.

The nomenclature, then should be characterized as follows, according to syntactical norms. Good, when talking of Good vs Evil, must be at all times capitalized, to oppose from the layman's term 'good' which could be used to describe a 'good meal' or 'good time at the mall'. Whereas evil should at most times be lowercase, as it denotes usually a variant, inexact value; as does the lowercase good. Evil then, with a capital 'E' should only be used when referring to the Philosophical Direction on a moral or ethical scale. Exempli Gratia: Person A has become more Evil everyday. vs. Person A is evil. This form of distinction shall be used hereafter.

Perhaps it has been proven so far the Necessity of the Existence of Infinite Good. This author has defined Infinite Good, as it relates to its necessary Existence and the philosophy of Ethics. This author has not defined Infinite Good as it defines the Natural World.

Except in religious philosophies of Dualism, where Evil and Good are seen to be Equal and Opposite forces, the concept of Evil should not be a part of the natural world, whereas the concept of Good drives its existence. However, instances of evil should persist prolifically in the natural world, as the natural world continues to either strive for or fall from but regardless not meet the Standard of Good. Herein lies the empirically testable part of my hypothesis: If this hypothesis of Infinite Good and finite evil is correct, we should expect to see in nature an abundance of flaws, deficiencies, inefficiencies where nature does not meet the Standard of Good. The reader may argue that this is in of itself circular; if we see a bad thing we label it bad; if we see a good thing we label it good; if we see evil we label it evil: an awful tautology that has only one solution: The clear and Separate definition of Infinite Good, as perceived by an Infinite Being.

Logically, a being capable of holding in its mind a clear definition of Infinite Good as it defines all of finite matter and time, must be Infinite. This arrives the author at an unexpected conclusion. Either Infinite Good exists, as proven by earlier paragraphs, and therefore an Infinite Being to define it, and hold the form of its standard, or Infinite Good is an illusion, a mirage in a water-less desert, and so therefore is the concept of all things Good a mirage. Either Truth exists or it doesn't. Either these words are the incoherent ramblings of a piece of sentient matter, or they are the incoherent ramblings of a piece of sentient matter that matters.

It is interesting to note that as my hypothesis suggests Reality, wikipedia has so applied it. Evil, being measurable on a scale, and prolifically present and variant, contains an article of the same description.

The article for 'Good' has disappeared altogether, and the link redirects to 'Value Theory', which was initially the investigation of the natural laws of Good and Evil, also known as ethics, which has since evolved to other more empirical pursuits. I also suggest in this forum that the link for 'good' be redirected to Form of the Good, an article on Plato's theory. (talk) .C 8:36 AM Sunday, February 24, 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)