Originally posted by mokko
Man on a whole is good.

There's an unfair representation through media which represents and protrays man as evil. I believe this representation is limited in contrast to reality. In reality man strives to be good in his/her everyday dealings.

Now weather or not a persons percieption of good or evil is complacent within any given society is another story.

So Hitler, Stalin, Himmler, McVeigh etc weren't evil?

Originally posted by Halitose
So Hitler, Stalin, Himmler, McVeigh etc weren't evil?

No, they commited acts of evil but as to their being intrinsically evil and this resulting in their acts (this meaning, I am guessing, underlies your post), you would be attributing some characterisation to evil. Is evil a paranormal entity of some sort, or is it a description of acts committed against the general morality/law? I would say the second is true.

Please refer to this thread for more:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=26877

Originally posted by KellyJay
If people alone label what is called good and evil; than it is only
people’s current personal tastes that matter on what we call
good and evil today, it may change tomorrow. Reason being we
can change our minds on what is good and evil! Which would
mean that something once called good can now be really called
evil; we after all are the only ones that h ...[text shortened]... r abilities
to define them as well, and stand as a judge in our actions and
choices.
Kelly

If there is a "higher power" which has such a say, all that's changed is that the "higher power's" personal tastes that have been added to the mix. Now of course if this "higher power" were very powerful, it could give orders and enforce them with punishments and rewards, but there's nothing intrinsically "correct" with such a being's opinion of right and wrong.

Originally posted by Halitose
In a word "personal-utilitarianism".

But I agree with you that this is very simplistic, because what about a man with a family to care for? Will his decisions not also have an element of pleasure for the whole family?

That is where I personally can't see people merely acting on their own pleasure. Where does looking out for you fellow man come from? Morals? Principles? These things generally don't give the individual much pleasure.

There are less shallow and more intuitively reasonable ways to base morality on pain and pleasure than KJ's simplistic model.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think it's important to add other factors to the mix. You're effectively suggesting that pain/pleasure is the most important part of life and I would disagree. The inbuilt necessity to pass on your genes and to ensure the best chance of that passage being successful is more important. So a man who goes hungry to feed his child is choosing to do so to ...[text shortened]... y can compete in the next round of life, he has put aside the pleasure/pain drives for a moment.

You're confusing pain and pleasure as a general thing with the man's own personal pain and pleasure. Even there, you're disregarding the power of the man's conscience and beliefs in causing him pain and pleasure.

Originally posted by Starrman
Yes in as much as they are rugs to sweep more complex natural desires under.

I'd hazard a guess that the origins of the notion of love are founded within the spiritual/religious realm. I cannot imagine that love existed before humans developed the ideas of higher/holy realms/beings. I cannot see a need for it.

Love has no need of religion or magic. I can love my wife, my friends or my child without being religious or "spiritual".

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Love has no need of religion or magic. I can love my wife, my friends or my child without being religious or "spiritual".

I am seperating the word 'love' as different from the word 'care'. In my eyes people generally use the word love as something embued with spiritual qualities, I do not. I would say that what you feel towards your family is a deep and powerful need to care and be cared for. I would also suggest that this need is rooted in evolved instincts to help ensure the success of your family.

Originally posted by Starrman
No, they commited acts of evil but as to their being intrinsically evil and this resulting in their acts (this meaning, I am guessing, underlies your post), you would be attributing some characterisation to evil. Is evil a paranormal entity of some sort, or is it a description of acts committed against the general morality/law? I would say the second is t ...[text shortened]... refer to this thread for more:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=26877

How can you know for sure that the second is true?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You're confusing pain and pleasure as a general thing with the man's own personal pain and pleasure. Even there, you're disregarding the power of the man's conscience and beliefs in causing him pain and pleasure.

I don't believe I am, could you elaborate on that?

Originally posted by Starrman
I don't believe I am, could you elaborate on that?

Or maybe you should elaborate on what you don't believe you are😉

To be or not to be, that is the question.

Originally posted by Halitose
So Hitler, Stalin, Himmler, McVeigh etc weren't evil?

Well again, as much as mankind perceives the acts of Hitler, Stalin, Himmler, McVeigh as evil these individuals (I believe) did not consider themselves "evil". I imagine they considered themselves "patriots" working for a just or "good" cause.

So were these individuals "evil"? I am not religious but although many of the world consider The Pope as a representative of what is good, there are some I am sure who consider him "evil".

I think there are not too many who knowingly strive to be "evil" but more so they believe their cause (whether it is to wipe out a race, etc) to be the "good" or "just" cause.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
Well again, as much as mankind perceives the acts of Hitler, Stalin, Himmler, McVeigh as evil these individuals (I believe) did not consider themselves "evil". I imagine they considered themselves "patriots" working for a just or "good" cause.

So were these individuals "evil"? I am not religious but although many of the world consider The Pope ...[text shortened]... elieve their cause (whether it is to wipe out a race, etc) to be the "good" or "just" cause.

So once again we get stuck with a relative sense of morality where the perception of good and evil are merely the constructs of each individual and his culture. Big circle! So now I have to ask again, if it is not pain and pleasure that define good and evil what is it?

Originally posted by Halitose
So once again we get stuck with a relative sense of morality where the perception of good and evil are merely the constructs of each individual and his culture. Big circle! So now I have to ask again, if it is not pain and pleasure that define good and evil what is it?

You just answered your own question. Culture and the individuals within it define good and evil.

Can animals be evil? Only if you project human traits in them...

Originally posted by Palynka
You just answered your own question. Culture and the individuals within it define good and evil.

Can animals be evil? Only if you project human traits in them...

So is this a pointless debate, because my definition of good and evil would probably differ from yours?

Originally posted by Halitose
So is this a pointless debate, because my definition of good and evil would probably differ from yours?

I don't think debates are pointless if they make you think about things.

Here the origins of good and evil and what defines them were discussed and that is perfectly debatable, of course.

A debate whether a specific act A is evil or good may (or may not) reach dead-ends, if you agree that definitions have a personal perspective even if heavily influenced by culture.