Good and Evil.

[Mindfire]

The article is wrong.

1. The idea of good versus evil isn't responsible for people's paranoia and spitefulness. People are.

2. Good vs. Evil is not tired. Stories that use that framework tend to become classics more often than those that don't.

3. The idea that people are mostly good is FALSE. Humans are not mostly good or mostly evil, but mostly selfish from the cradle to the grave. Overcoming selfishness leads to a good life. Indulging it ultimately leads to evil.

4. The idea that good vs evil has nothing more to teach us is also false. Our world is full of people who clearly either don't know the difference between right and wrong or don't care. Not just serial killers and the like, but white collar crooks, corrupt politicians, hate spewing rabblerousers, kids who can imagine no higher calling than to bully other kids, and rap "artists" who exploit women use sensationalism to sell records. Good vs evil stories say "this kind of behavior is not okay, and the right thing to do is to stand up to it."

5. The article uses a very subtle false division fallacy. The idea is "either we can have destructive and limiting good vs evil stories, or we can have uplifting stories about old men helping stripper moms to better themselves." That's a false division in two ways. First because there is room for both stories. Second because her story IS about good vs evil. Rather than having a righteous hero trouncing a black hat, it's about one character, through the good qualities of compassion and understanding, helping another to overcome the evils of ignorance, poverty, and bitterness. Ignorance, poverty, and bitterness are the story's villains. Evil doesn't have to be personified to exist. Any story about "growth" (which is a dumb idea, as the author admits every story is fundamentally about growth) implies that the protagonist must overcome something in order to grow. And you know what that is? EVIL!

It would have made more sense for the author to say "I don't like personified villains" instead. At least that would be an honest expression of preference rather than a self-righteous blanket statement.

 

[Phietadix]

I agree with many of Mindfires points above, but I go as far as to say everyone is basicly evil and there's really nothing they can do to change that. Just overcoming selfishness, even if that were posible, wouldn't do it.

 

[Mindfire]

I agree with many of Mindfires points above, but I go as far as to say everyone is basicly evil and there's really nothing they can do to change that. Just overcoming selfishness, even if that were posible, wouldn't do it.

I actually agree with you, but the reason I said people aren't mostly evil is because saying "evil" isn't specific enough, if you know what I mean. Evil, especially in this kind of argument, has come to be defined as "slaughtering innocents + maniacal laughter", which is not an accurate depiction of basic human nature any more than tabula rasa is. The kind of evil that is at the root of human nature is the kind that isn't necessarily dramatic or spectacular, but is simply a dangerous indifference towards other people. C.S. Lewis points out in his writings that the safest road to hell is the comfortable one, without mile markers or signposts. That kind of evil is just as dangerous, far more common, and harder to detect in oneself than acts of monumental cruelty. That's why I chose the word "selfishness". As for not being able to fix ourselves, you're right. I don't buy in to that "change comes from within" New Age-y stuff either. But I'm trying to keep this on topic and not turn this thread into (yet another) religious debate.

 

[Steerpike]

I think people are overall more good than evil. Whether it is inherent or due to rational self-interest, I'm not sure.

 

[Mindfire]

I think people are overall more good than evil. Whether it is inherent or due to rational self-interest, I'm not sure.

Being good and behaving good are not the same. I would not say most people are basically good. But I would say most people are taught to behave in good ways. In order to say humans are basically good, we'd have to observe a human with little to no social conditioning behaving benevolently consistently and ithout training. The closest thing to an unconditioned human is a baby or toddler, and they arent known for benevolence.

 

[Steerpike]

The closest thing to an unconditioned human is a baby or toddler, and they arent known for benevolence.

They are also immature and undeveloped, both emotionally and intellectually, and therefore not a good example.

 

[Shockley]

My thoughts on the latest Steerpike/Mindfire dispute (no points if you guess who I end up agreeing with):

I don't think you can disentangle action from intent, Mindfire. 'Being good' and 'acting good,' in my honest opinion, are basically one and the same. Let's break down what that means:

- If someone is 'being evil' but only 'acts good,' then for all intents and purposes that person is 'good.'
- If someone is 'being good' but only 'acts evil,' then for all intents and purposes that person is 'evil.'

Aristotle (and a lot of the post-Socratics) argued that evil was merely the privation of good, and not a force in and of itself. As long as someone was fully aware of the nature of good, they would never engage in evil. Only ignorance (of many kinds) could lead to real evil.

 

[Mindfire]

My thoughts on the latest Steerpike/Mindfire dispute (no points if you guess who I end up agreeing with):

I don't think you can disentangle action from intent, Mindfire. 'Being good' and 'acting good,' in my honest opinion, are basically one and the same. Let's break down what that means:

- If someone is 'being evil' but only 'acts good,' then for all intents and purposes that person is 'good.'
- If someone is 'being good' but only 'acts evil,' then for all intents and purposes that person is 'evil.'

Aristotle (and a lot of the post-Socratics) argued that evil was merely the privation of good, and not a force in and of itself. As long as someone was fully aware of the nature of good, they would never engage in evil. Only ignorance (of many kinds) could lead to real evil.

I disagree vehemently. Your definitions of "being" and "doing" must be different from mine. Here, with being, I am speaking of whether the innate nature of man is to do good. If man is good by instinct. Is this the case? I cannot believe it is. I disagree somewhat with your Aristotelian view, but even if it is true, if evil is caused only by ignorance, that alone is enough to prove man is not good by nature. For if he was, by nature, good, he would require no education in order to do good. But that is not the case. Without any education or conditioning to the contrary, man will always follow his selfish impulses, even to the detriment of others, which will lead him to engage in evil acts. Man is, by nature, evil, and any good he does comes only by education or reformation.

EDIT: Also, to "be good" and "act evil" is a contradiction. A being that is naturally, intrinsically good cannot do evil so long as that nature remains intact. To do evil is to mar that good nature and reduce it to an evil one, which then requires reformation. However, it is possible to "be evil" but "act good"- for a time. Eventually the pretense will fall away.

 

[Phietadix]

My thoughts on the latest Steerpike/Mindfire dispute (no points if you guess who I end up agreeing with):

I don't think you can disentangle action from intent, Mindfire. 'Being good' and 'acting good,' in my honest opinion, are basically one and the same. Let's break down what that means:

- If someone is 'being evil' but only 'acts good,' then for all intents and purposes that person is 'good.'
- If someone is 'being good' but only 'acts evil,' then for all intents and purposes that person is 'evil.'

Aristotle (and a lot of the post-Socratics) argued that evil was merely the privation of good, and not a force in and of itself. As long as someone was fully aware of the nature of good, they would never engage in evil. Only ignorance (of many kinds) could lead to real evil.

While someone might doing good they will definitally be doing evil. Nobody has the good outwiegh the bad.

 

[Devor]

I think there are plenty of times people do good or evil acts for inherently "neutral" or even contradictory reasons, like fitting in with a group or trying to avoid frustrations that come with doing otherwise.

I think people should still get a little credit for being good or evil in those situations. I think they end up training you for when you have are faced with a situation where you have to do something that's more difficult.

However, I also think that good and evil do apply to something that transcends your current actions. In some respects, I think what counts more than an impulsive good or evil action is how you choose to react to them afterwards.

Of course, that implies that this response counts to someone, because it isn't something society at large can measure or judge with any credibility. Society at large has only your visible actions and testimony to take into account when passing judgments.

 

[Steerpike]

While someone might doing good they will definitally be doing evil. Nobody has the good outwiegh the bad.

Of the people I know personally, all of their good outweighs the bad.

 

[Phietadix]

Of the people I know personally, all of their good outweighs the bad.

Are you sure? You might just not be there when the bad happens.

 

[FatCat]

To argue that evil rules humanity is, in my opinion, bizarre. You can cite our basic instincts to your hearts content, but good and evil are subjective terms. What is good and what is evil, and how does that correlate to your surroundings? Is an animal evil because it kills another for food? Is that self-preservation, is that evil? Or is evil ill-will towards others? Isn't that emotion? Is anger evil? You have to give credit to society, and mankind, despite our flaws. If we were all set on the downfall of each other, how could we create anything?

 

[Steerpike]

Are you sure? You might just not be there when the bad happens.

Yes, I'm sure. My feeling is that if you are surrounding yourself with people who's bad deeds outweigh their good, you need to find a new crew.

 

[Devor]

Or is evil ill-will towards others? Isn't that emotion? Is anger evil?

Errr . . . don't be mad at me, but I think most of us can be angry at someone without wishing them ill.

 

[Ireth]

Is anger evil?

If that was so, then Jesus' freakout in the temple, wherein he kicked out the money-changers with whips, would have annulled his status as the sinless Lamb of God, would it not?

 

[Mindfire]

To argue that evil rules humanity is, in my opinion, bizarre. You can cite our basic instincts to your hearts content, but good and evil are subjective terms. What is good and what is evil, and how does that correlate to your surroundings? Is an animal evil because it kills another for food? Is that self-preservation, is that evil? Or is evil ill-will towards others? Isn't that emotion? Is anger evil? You have to give credit to society, and mankind, despite our flaws. If we were all set on the downfall of each other, how could we create anything?

Those arguments are only viable if you accept the premise that good and evil are subjective. However, if you DON'T subscribe to that view, it all falls apart. Guess what? I don't think good and evil are subjective. But as I said, I'm really trying not to make this into another "believers vs materialists" debate.

 

[Mindfire]

If that was so, then Jesus' freakout in the temple, wherein he kicked out the money-changers with whips, would have annulled his status as the sinless Lamb of God, would it not?

Anger is not inherently evil. And sometimes it's a perfectly reasonable response to the situation at hand. Also, that scene was awesome. I should know. I was there, Ireth. I was there two thousand years ago...



Yeah, okay, not really. I was just reaching for a Lord of the Rings reference.

 

[FatCat]

Errr . . . don't be mad at me, but I think most of us can be angry at someone without wishing them ill.

It's too late, you've angered me and now I wish you ill-will.

 

[FatCat]

Those arguments are only viable if you accept the premise that good and evil are subjective. However, if you DON'T subscribe to that view, it all falls apart. Guess what? I don't think good and evil are subjective. But as I said, I'm really trying not to make this into another "believers vs materialists" debate.

How can good and evil not be subjective?

Morals are based on societal standards, not some ingrained instinct. How can you argue true morality while societal bias inhabits everything the both of us debate?