h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So everyone (except Blicky and Shakespeare) agrees that good and bad exist? Though they are mostly subjective concepts.

So what about ______ and evil? Oh wait a minute. There isn't a word for the opposite of evil! I wonder why? Good doesn't work. Neither does really really really good. Anyhow, good is the opposite of bad.

You know, I don't believe that evil exists at all. Nor its counterpart, whatever it's called. Mostly we live someplace between good and bad. I don't think humans are clever enough to be truly evil. And they are too human to be totally ______.



az

Jordan. To try to put your point even more concisely.: 'Evil' is an adjective, and there can be no conservation law for adjectives. Noether would have dismissed them (wouldn't she, Noggin?). Adjectives like 'evil' are, in any event, in the mind of the observer and not the object. Take for example, the Pope and the mind (?) of Ian Paisley. Hmmmmm..........

toxx

Very good, toxx, but I wanted to kill two birds with one stone (how could a perfect (good?) God create beings which can commit evil acts?) I also inagine that blicky is thinking of evil in a... well, a rather Christian way, as a thing that can be 'in' people.

- Jordan

Jordan. A perfect God, for the usual freewill reason, has to create beings capable of *any* kind of act; even interesting or boring ones! 'Evil' can no more be in people than 'boring' can. That is Blicky's problem; not the imaginary quesion of just how evil or boring can be in people - cos they can't.

toxx

I agree. People can do evil (for a given value of evil) things, and even be called (though I doubt the validity) evil people, but we can hardly say that there is 'evil' in them, as though they're possessed or infected or something.

Unless you're Justin the Preacher.

- Jordan

Hi

Reading the wonderful tabloid press, convinces me that evil certainly does exist, at the moment I am reading about the court case of the caretaker who murdered the two little girls in Soham, England, last year, Holly and Jessica, two beautiful little girls, 10 years old, their lives extinguished by one brutal, callous act, by an evil person, bent on destruction.

Jane

Where did evil come from? Blickybadger, you don't ask *hard* questions, do you?
The jealous wrathful war-like God you and many here love to hate, is evident mostly in the O.T., I've already revealed my secret Marcionite tendencies regarding the Old Testament.
An answer is, that evil came with free will - that having created beings, God had allowed the possibility of those beings choosing to do wrong.
Shakespeare was a great writer, but his works don't constitute a guide to life - an example would be those pesky people who always try to apply Juliet's "what's in a name?' speech as general rule. A by any other name (gerbil, for instance) may smell as sweet, but who's going to want to name their daughter after one?

>>does it matter if something is designated evil in one culture but good in another?<<
AFAIK, there are some things that are always considered evil in *every* culture.(Murder for instance.) I know we've tackled this before, and someone did try to assert that some culture or other didn't consider murder wrong, but I don't accept her argument.
Murder, treason, adultery, (which is wrong even in polygamous societies), what other biggies can people suggest?
Sure some things are culture-specific, like offering water and hospitality in the desert, but when looked at closely, those things are subsets of expected behaviours everywhere - like the obligation to save life as far as possible...

>>that he cannot create sentient creatures without free will - which means the potential to commit evil acts.<<
I agree Jordan, that's so succinct!

Why thank you, Della, that was my intention!

- Jordan

Actually, adultery and murder are not universal!

Modern, inclusive standards standards might dictate that killing /anyone/ is murder, while the OT states that it is fine - even required - that the majority of the UK population be slaughtered, while early Britain featured public executions of anyone the reigning monarch cares to dispose of. Of course, they don't /call/ this murder - they calls execution - but that's a matter of semantics; most people nowadays would consider such executions equivalent to murder.

And adultery is reveled in with many societies - in one study, an ethologist and his wife were immediately assigned other consorts while they were studying there because adultery was the societal norm!

Finally, treasonous behaviour is considered quite laudable by the oppressed when engaged in a revolution.

Can someone actually define evil operationally?

- Jordan

Hi y'all

Right here we go again!

When will you see that the label of 'evil' is generally applied to a person or action when people can't be bothered to find out why? Especially when the why would also implicate them and their society in the despicable deeds that followed.

It is just easier to say 'he is evil' than actually address those root causes. Taking the latest atrocity in Soham. The press is revelling in the what, the when, the who, the where and the how. Almost nobody is asking 'why?'. Truth is difficult and so should not be considered obviously.

In the USA, even when an excellent film such as "Bowling for Columbine" undermines the 'they were evil' argument behind numerous massacres, people just don't want to know and continue to propagate a culture where citizens are expected to arm themselve to the teeth with no thought as to the mental stablity of those possessing those firearms.

'Evil' is an adjective. It is not a noun. It is not a force. It should not be used as an excuse for society to hide behind!!!

So is 'good'....

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

"My position, which I have already announced a few pages ago, is that good and evil are species-specific. Nothing so narrow as 'culture' nor anything as broad as 'universal', mainly because I don't see how anything can get started at that level."

Hi toxx!
I think we're probably on the same wavelength. I don't see that we can argue for a universal when so many cultures are at odds in some of their mores e.g. the religious duty in many ancient cultures to take revenge for the killing of your kin as opposed to that in most modern Christian influenced countries.

On the other hand, there do seem to be some mores which are generally accepted, such as not killing your children, or murder.

I wonder if all generally accepted mores are those which guarantee the continuance of the community, whereas the culturally specific ones are not of that order. The interesting thing is what creates a culturally specific moral, and how far these are tied into religion.

"Evil is a path, a choice. It doesn't have to exist - all that has to exist is the /potential/ for evil."

Isn't 'evil' simply a natural response to a natural drive? And 'good' an inhibition to that particular response i.e. that giving way to that response will act against the short or long term interests and desires of the particular individual in the particular culture?

"(how could a perfect (good?) God create beings which can commit evil acts?)"

I can't recall what began this debate within Christian theology, though I recall the gnostic answer.
Is the orthodox reply still that of 'freewill'? And that 'evil' is not choosing what God wants? (Which begs the question of Christian cultures which have different cultural mores, such as African Christian countries which endorse female circumcision).
Of course, the orthodox idea embodies the concept that God=good, and not God=evil. As I say, this reply encounters the problem of accounting for differing cultural mores. However, if this reply is not adopted, how is the existence of good and evil (which now becomes separate to God) accounted for? Is good more important than God; is he subject to the rules? If so, whose rules?

az

hi Math,

No doubt I expressed myself very badly in a previous posting about good and evil, but in fact I agree with your take on evil. It is an adjective, obviously. Though I still wonder why there isn't an equivilant adjective for its opposite (I think good is the opposite adjective for bad, not for evil).

<<'Evil' is an adjective. It is not a noun. It is not a force. It should not be used as an excuse for society to hide behind!!!>>





az

hi Heathen,

<<(Which begs the question of Christian cultures which have different cultural mores, such as African Christian countries which endorse female circumcision).>>

Well, quite. Not to mention other various atrocities throughout history that have been done 'in the name of God'.

It seems to me that, thoughout history, 'God's rules' have been twisted and distorted to suit whoever was in power at the moment.

az

All of these are, strictly speaking, culture specific. What *all* societies *do* seem to have is some set of rules for regulating interpersonal violence, social heirarchy (whether formal or informal), and sexual behaviour (and probably property rights), as these are the areas of behaviour most likely to disrupt social order.

Noggin

Not that simple, I think. Both are largely "natural" responses (care of the young is not an inhibition of a natural behaviour, for example.)

Noggin