In our society there are a lot of actions that are generally seen as good and a lot that are generally seen as evil. For example killing several people is something that would be seen as evil. But is there really such a thing as innate good and evil or is it just a concept we were taught through society? Are certain actions such as killing several people always evil regardless of the motivation for doing them?

If a man killed several people falsely believing he'd be saving several others would that action still be evil or not and why? Another example is someone like Adolf Hitler, most people would agree to be an example of an evil person and really seen by some as truly evil understandably because of his actions, but if he believed that what he was doing was for the greater good does that still really mean he's a truly evil person? Is our sense of good and evil something we are born with, or is it something we are taught through society? Is what is good and evil something that is objective or subjective and simply a manner of how you perceive it?

I think It's obvious from where I'm going with this that I believe it's subjective and that it hasn't always existed in the way we see it today. I think it's a survival mechanic that has become so ingrained into society by being a concept we're taught from a very early age as it furthers the survival of our own species and therefore we don't really question it. Take something like a dog killing another dog, that would likely be seen as something driven by instinct but if a human killed another human it is seen as evil because that human would be seen as a danger to other humans. If that same person did it to allow several other humans to survive however that would likely change the way a lot of people see it.

Either way I'm curious to hear what the people of Vizzed have to say on this wheter you agree with me or consider my line of thinking completely off.

I'm in sort of the same boat: 'good and evil' are artificial in the sense that man, as a whole, created the concept. However, at the same time these concepts are what have helped to perpetuate our existence and could be argued to be as natural as knowing to stay out of heavy rain. I do whole-heartedly agree that the 'good and evil' we are taught growing up is simply what our society, without realizing it or not, has agreed to teach; what it believes will to help advance the human race in one way or other.

Is there such a thing as innate 'good and evil,' though? In a sense, yes. This is our conscience, our moral compass. And as much as this innate sense of wrong and right is influenced by our environment growing up, to a certain level it will always be unique to an individual. Normally, this conscience will tell people to do what is 'right' for the advancement of thier society or to do what is 'right' for another person: protesting terrorist groups, giving change to the needfull homeless when possible. In some cases, though, this conscience will point in a destructive direction, a direction which impacts the continuation of the species. While statiscally rare, people like this seem to be prevalent in the world nowadays what with all the mass-shootings.

To stop what could be a very much longer rant, yes, I agree with you. I beleive our conscience can be compared to instincts, and that our sense of 'good and evil' is largely manufactured by the ridiculous amount of time human society has had to form.

This thread makes a lot of sense and I've found myself in many conversations like this before. The way I think people look at it, or certain people is that you're taking the life of someone dear to them and they don't get to spend time with them anymore so they look at it as a bad action.

I personally would be upset if you take the life of a loved one but I don't really know if there is a way to call it Good or Evil, because like you said. It could be a concept taught to us. In any case, I doubt It'll change the way most people think though.

If you seriously think there is no good, and no evil. You're sadly mistaken. We have a few standards by this. First off is our own conscious, a moral compass by which we decide what do to. It is easily the most corruptible and twisted of the three because we are in control of our own views of it.
Second we have society's morals and standards. Pretty basic things like not murdering, not stealing, not setting property on fire. Laws and order really sums it up. But then we also have standards as to what is a respectable job, how to dress, things like that.
Then third is sadly a dwindling concept of the world. But religious morals and standards. These standards are things a lot of today's highest laws are based upon. Again, things like how to dress, what not to do, and all that.

One can, correctly, say that a combination of these three has done the most harm to the world. But on the flipside; it has also done some of the most good.In some people's opinion there is a universal standard. But to others, there in no standard. And before any fingers have been pointed at me...People have done incredible works for good. And incredible atrocities using these different layers of standards.

When it comes to good and evil we really have to think back and question where the concept originates from. To be honest, I doubt the concept originated from any secular group, as Zlinqx said, the concept is subjective to different opinions and raising.

I actually couldn't agree more, as people assume that their idea of good and evil is a timeless, and Universal standard, when in reality it's just another perspective. What's important with all perspectives though, is if they are grounded in solid material.

When I think of good and evil, from the ground up if I may, the first authority I find is my conscious. Which will definitely be differing from others. The second authority I find in nature, and what is best for me and other humans. I know, people can disagree with this standard, but, I think it makes sense. I mean, if you want to go about something, why not make it scientific? I want myself and other humans to live happily, and I try to live and interact with them, in a way that benefits us all.

The third and final authority, many of you probably already guessed. Yes, it is the Torah. From the beginning of time Yahova has made a standard for righteousness.(John 1:1) That standard never changes, and, even though humans have forgotten it, God has sent prophets, and teachers to bring us back to Him time and time again.

From my understanding, the most powerful part of the Bible and most important scriptures for us to learn is the moral standard, as given to use in Dueteronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus. Now, in English or other languages, things don't always make sense, and many translations particularly cater to Catholic traditions started by the Roman Emperor Constantine rather than translating more accurately into truth. In fact my favorite version of the Bible does not even attempt to use English words in some scenarios. It just outright takes, and uses the Jewish word when it comes to unique concepts that are difficult to translate directly into our own language. Such as the word Torah, instead of Law. Or mitzvah, instead of repentance. Emphasizing how holy it is.

One other thing I really like about the Torah over politics?

The Torah never changes.

I mean, over time, society can do whatever crazy stupid things it wants and then make it legal. Take the naked bicycle race we had up here in the U.S. Now they're saying Marijuana is causing wrecks. . . and I remember when people told me that it would never cause that because Marijuana makes you drive cars slower. . .

The moral standard in the Torah is timeless and will remain forever. It's the standard to compare our own conscious against, and to try with logic- as you would anything else. I'm glad I tried some passages in the Torah with logic, and found out what they were really speaking of. Like some of the verses which speak about slavery ect. A lot of those verses we just don't understand because we're using the English equivalents to Hebrew words which are pretty weak, or just plain crude. Take the word servant for example, which probably should have been used more often, but then, think about how many different types of servants there are.

And then you have that one verse which says you can sell your daughter to somebody else as a slave? What's that all about? Well, you're going to have to research the Hebrew culture, and even the Talmud (which is 10x as thick as the Bible) in order to find out what's really going on here, and just what the restrictions were.

What were those restrictions? Well, if the daughter was to be sold, it had to be for her benefit. And the money she was purchased with, IIRC was actually stored for her on the day she would be free. As a "slave" or really a handservant, She would be treated well, given decent lodgings, and after seven years she would have the option of going free. . . or renewing her contract with her master.

This situation was made in the Torah so that if you had a child you couldn't take care of, that you could provide them with a better future. Not so that you could make money off your children. Particularly in a situation where you were not able to monitarily take care of your own daughter, either because you were disabled or just poor. But ensuring a future for her in a rich man's house not to far away while you tried to get back on your feet? What's wrong with that? Nothing is. In fact, I bet if such a thing were customary in North America many poor families would have done so today. It's just we don't understand the Hebrew culture, the Talmud, or even the Torah in it's proper linguistic context, and that's where all the "Bible is evil!" Stuff comes from. I'm going to have to say it's not, it just takes understanding.

PS : If Christians think that this no longer applies today, then they still have to account for the fact that Yahova had no problem with it in the past, so don't think that you can wave off all "tough" questions about the "Old Testatment!" XD

We probably put too much value in the words good and evil.
Those terms are relative to a person and their upbringing and/or morality.
By calling someone or something good or evil, we are applying our own sense of morality to their actions as if our opinions are facts.
As for conscience, it is just an extension of morality. Anyone that doesn't adhere to our society's moral code doesn't feel the same remorse when going against it.

Anyone saying that religion defines what is good or evil, consider the crusades.
Christianity says that murder is wrong and "evil," yet for a 200 year period the church condoned killing 200000 people with the justification that it was "in the name of God."

The marijuana and biking arguments don't really seem to fit into this topic.

I dunno where to end this, so I'll just stop here...

Vanelan :

Why don't they seem to fit with this topic? Isn't. . . naked people biking kindof obscene and a good example of something most people would consider imoral, and yet a specific group in the U.S. legally allowed upon the general public?

What about those who take marijuana and say. "It only effects me!" And then get into a wreck because they were driving to slow?


While true on a broader extent that it was Christianity was responsible for the crusades, more specifically the Catholic Church was responsible for it.

I'm not a Christian, but I once was, and nothing used to irritate me more than grouping all Christians as being responsible for things like the Crusades when it was caused by mostly one, or two groups- again, particularly the Catholic Church. If I may point that out. I don't wish to sound like a know it all here. . . but I do wish to promote clarity and avoid vagueness in good topics such as these. I believe some other Christians here would appreciate it.

Stop using the words good and evil and you will see it very clearly.


Try the words selfish and unselfish and you can see examples of good and evil all over the place. People who take time out of their days to volunteer to feed the homeless are an example of good. People who have more than they need an intentionally ignore people in need are selfish. I'm not going to argue semantics of what is enough money for their needs because different situations have different requirements but I think we all know someone who has more money than they need but never do anything for anyone but themselves.


You could do this with a bunch of similar offsetting words like good and evil or selfish and unselfish to come up with examples of good and evil in action. I don't think there would be that much disagreement between people as to what is good and evil.


When something is evil it is rarely the people committing the evil act that actually think it is evil. Pedophilia is a great example of this. I don't think you would find too many people who would call that anything but evil. Anyone else is probably participating in it. Slavery is another example of something that is pretty commonly considered evil now. Rape and murder are also things that most people consider evil.

Outside of the really terrible stuff it does become a lot more personal. I personally think swearing is "evil" in the sense that it is degrading both to the speaker and the audience. Many people think it is okay. Those are things that are more difficult to decide on.

I did read a book (and I still own it I think) about a psychiatrist's study of evil and he was fully convinced that it was real. It's not something you can exactly quantify but he did say that in his research he found people who he would classify as evil. Most people are lukewarm when it comes to "evil" but he found people who had no conscience or morals.

So, I do think good and evil exist. I can't say for 100% certainty that my personal ideas on good and evil are exact but I know they exist.

Sword legion :
You think nude biking is obscene, but there are people that don't. That's a perfect example of how good and evil are relative words.
What is "evil" about that? Even though I wouldn't participate in it, I don't see how that is evil or even immoral.

I am a bit confused where you stand on the marijuana issue...but from your reply, I think you agree with me that people who are high shouldn't drive. Same with drunk driving.
Do they always get into accidents? No...but I would rather not have someone that is impaired driving. Driving sober has enough distractions already.

You're confusing what I said about the Crusades.
I said that the church condoned it, I wasn't assigning blame.

geeogree : You probably put it better than we have by calling it selfish and selfless.
I am still not sure "evil" and "good" can be quantified or proven though.
Morality (and conscience) is and always will be taught behaviors imposed by parents and/or society.
Don't get me wrong though. Sense of morality isn't a bad thing. Its a necessary to keep an orderly society.

Of COURSE there is. While many people still believe in moral relativism (or worse, "evolution), I do believe in 'objective" moral standards, i.e. those that preserve life and property. Any action moving towards that is good, and any action violating them is evil.

Now, while I don't want to start a debate on abortion, I do think that there is a moral hazard (evil? maybe) to get an abortion after the first trimester unless the mother's life is in danger. Using it as a means of contraception IS evil because it deresponsabilizes the parents to act safely when they don't want a family.

The funny thing about "good" and "evil" are that they are all perceived differently buy different types of people depending on their personality, upbringing/etc.

I actually kind of find it interesting that a lot of the people that consider themselves to be the most "moral" can also be perceived as the most "evil" by others.

It's all very subjective.

geeogree:  Pedophilia is a great example of this. I don't think you would find too many people who would call that anything but evil.

And yet throughout history, and even some places now it is practiced widely.
It may not be quite the same, but the age of consent in a couple of countries is 13, and in these countries it's not super uncommon for these girls to be in a sexual relationship with men in their 40s and 50s.
I find this appalling personally, however there it is normal. Heck, father daughter incest was more common in America than people realize not but 40-50 years ago, especially in the south. This leads to a point...

Anyone else is probably participating in it. Slavery is another example...

Yes, a great example. Now it is very commonly considered evil (a feeling I share, no worries) however some years ago it was widely practiced all over the world. During this time it was not considered evil because it was the norm.

In short me point is, when the majority does it, it is no longer considered evil or even selfish. In the case of slavery? It was just good business. In fact, many slavers were considered hard-working people

 ----
 I think this details out how morality is very much a social construct, or a personal one, but not objective. Remembering this is important I think as well, because it forces you to evaluate your own beliefs rather than just accept them as truth."Group Mentality" dictating morality (as it often does in many societies) leads to the destruction of many lives in a lot cases. I think it's important to realize no one has it truly figured out, and decide for yourself what is right or wrong. While morality maybe be subjective, that doesn't make it any less important. More so in fact, because that means you have to put the work in defining it.
---


janus :  'objective" moral standards, I.e.those that preserve life and property

More than one war was started on a similar idea. Heck, that's the morality that caused America to enter the Middle East (well, at least with a heavier presence than was already there) and that was widely regarded as a bad move. Yes, that's a great way of stating it, but there are still grey areas.
The old moral puzzle for example. It's a lot longer, but the short of it is could you kill one man to save the lives of 5? What if the man was your friend and it was the lives of 5 or even 10 strangers? What about 100? At what point does murdering an innocent person become the moral thing to do? You know who wouldn't hesitate to murder one to save 5 and preserve more life? A psychopath.



Edit: Oh yeah, for those of you who remember me...I'm back! 

I go with "ying-yang". I think for myself that everything is a matter of perspectives. People consider me rich yet my parents never gave me money so I do have luxuries such as internet and electricity and my survival needs are also filled, yet I don't have any money to spend. My parents really save their money and cut my pocket money so it's just enough for me to eat some fast food. Now my parents and I live at grandmother's house, my parents make my grandma pay the bills for her house yet they won't give anything. They consider themselves GOOD because they can take care of my grandmother if she gets ill or something. On the other hand my grandmother doesn't like them living like that. They don't even share their food with grandma. I made this pretty personal but I felt like talking it out. 

Good and evil are purely individual concepts and that will never change. Yes, I have a different sense of good and evil than someone in India or Somalia if only because we're completely different people and have grown up in completely different situations and lived completely different lives.

Zlinqx :

There is "good", but "evil" is only the absence of goodness. A "good" for a body is when it is healthy. It's corresponding evil is when it is unhealthy. "Unhealthiness" isn't a real thing, it means your body lacks a homeostasis or a proper order. Like this, evil actions aren't real things, they are just actions that lack goodness.

Taking things that don't belong to you isn't evil. It's taking things that don't belong to you without consent of the owner that is bad. Stealing is, therefore, just another scenario that lacks goodness.

baileyface544 : It could be opened for discussion if the menace is objectively true at 100%. Having even the SLIGHTEST doubt about the person's guilt accounts for a murder

The Shin Megami Tensei series takes a really well done approach to this subject and i suggest you try the fourth one, on a serious note i don't know how to answer that

I agree with you. People's actions of good and evil depend on perspective. As you said, in society a murderer is considered evil and is sent to prison. But, it depends on the actual facts and how things played out- it could have been self defense which in that case he/she would not be seeing as a murderer anymore even though he/she did in fact kill someone- but,  we see him/her as a victim fighting to survive. So, I think the circumstances shape our perception of evil or good more than the actual actions.

jlove92 : I do not entirely agree. "Murder", for I hope all people, is voluntarily taking away someone's life. If self-defense can be proved without a doubt, then there is no murder.

"Perspective" in morality, in my view, is akin to relativism. Murder is acceptable in some circumstances, but not in some. MURDER is always unacceptable since one does not have the right to terminate someone's life. But then, there is also the question of euthanasia / assisted suicide for terminally ill patients or those with very severe diseases...

That's what I mean. The act of Murder is technically taking someone's life but that does not make you evil what makes you evil are the circumstances. So, in theory good and evil are not so much on the action alone but, a combination of both action and circumstance so it can be said it's based on perspective. Which is both good and bad; there are bad people that kill with  every bad intention and find ways to change the circumstance and perspective in court and get away with it. So, just because the act was committed does not make you evil, the circumstances why the action was committed is what ultimately makes you good or bad.