Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is evil required?

  • 19-01-2006 10:12pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭


    In order to know good from evil, we need to know what evil is and then compare it with the good, so do we need evil so we can recognise the good?

    If the world was at peace throughout it's lifetime and never knew evil, would we all be walking around with our heads in the clouds, and if something evil happened, what would it be called by such a society, would it be recognised as a bad thing, and if so, how would such a society know right from wrong if all it has known is peace?

    My take on it is this, that in order for us to obtain peace throughout the world we must unfortuneatly suffer and learn from all that is evil, by learning from the evil we will be able to strive against it and reach for all that is good, in a world where the "apple was not eaten" we would all, at this very moment live in peace, but such is not the case, so therefore the only way to gain peace is to take the evil, suffer it, then strive against it like an opposing force, and vow to never be the instigator of such evils, but to also remember and document all those evils so as future societies may learn from, and recognise all that is evil.
    And if you need God, or A God, or no God to help you on your way, then that's totally up to you.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    juddd wrote:
    In order to know good from evil, we need to know what evil is and then compare it with the good, so do we need evil so we can recognise the good?
    Readest thou "On the Genealogy of Morals", by one Friedrich Nietzsche. He explains the difference between good versus bad, and good versus evil. And why morality is a sickness.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    The Law of the old testament was put in place so we would know that there is no way that we can live a life without sin, hence the need for a saviour.

    From that standpoint then, we understand evil because we were given the guidelines (or Laws) to show us what is evil.

    People have different ideas of what is ans isn't evil.

    Some examples: abortion, prostitution, adultery, Gorge Bush, war in Iraq, to name a few. The question then comes to any society: who's views become the foundation and standard by which our laws are set?

    In the Bristish Empire countries (I'm in Canada) it was the Bible, now it seems to be wahtever the ruling party decides is right or wrong.

    In the case of the RC church it could have been whatever the local parish priest deemed right or wrong?

    Wher are you morals and their foundation coming from? is the rhetorical question.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > From that standpoint then, we understand evil because we were
    > given the guidelines (or Laws) to show us what is evil.


    Does this mean that you need to be told, for example, that murder and stealing are bad things? :confused:

    > The question then comes to any society: who's views become
    > the foundation and standard by which our laws are set?


    In the past, conservative laws were promulgated which ensured the security and fixity of the strata of society. Over a long period of time, these laws have evolved from the dictatorial position of moral absolutism (and the divine right of kings) to the far more social 'you can do what you like, as long as you don't hurt anybody else doing it'.

    Or, to put it another way, modern societies implicitly understand that the notion of a restrictive "moral code" has no consistent meaning, and therefore leave it up to their citizens as to whether they have sex with hookers, buy porn, take drugs, buy a beer on Sunday morning or whatever. This, of course, is acid to the ears of religious leaders like the pope who rightly views what he calls "moral relativism" as a direct erosion of his self-approved right to tell other people how to live.

    The reason that society's laws have evolved in this way is explained, as is most of life, by an understanding of Darwin's "differential reproductive success". In short, societies which permit people to do much as they like simply out-perform those that don't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote:
    > From that standpoint then, we understand evil because we were
    > given the guidelines (or Laws) to show us what is evil.


    Does this mean that you need to be told, for example, that murder and stealing are bad things? :confused:

    There would have been some. The Incas, Aztecs and Mayans used to practice human sacrifice. We think that is horrible and tantamount to murder. The Romans used to put unwanted babies on the rubbish heap outside the city walls (which wre subsequently rescued by Christians)

    > The question then comes to any society: who's views become
    > the foundation and standard by which our laws are set?

    robindch wrote:
    In the past, conservative laws were promulgated which ensured the security and fixity of the strata of society. Over a long period of time, these laws have evolved from the dictatorial position of moral absolutism (and the divine right of kings) to the far more social 'you can do what you like, as long as you don't hurt anybody else doing it'.

    Or, to put it another way, modern societies implicitly understand that the notion of a restrictive "moral code" has no consistent meaning, and therefore leave it up to their citizens as to whether they have sex with hookers, buy porn, take drugs, buy a beer on Sunday morning or whatever. This, of course, is acid to the ears of religious leaders like the pope who rightly views what he calls "moral relativism" as a direct erosion of his self-approved right to tell other people how to live.

    The reason that society's laws have evolved in this way is explained, as is most of life, by an understanding of Darwin's "differential reproductive success". In short, societies which permit people to do much as they like simply out-perform those that don't.

    (Always bringing Darwin into it?:) ) I read a study, which I am not going to be able to find now that I need it, but trust me, where a historian looked at past civilizations and found that when they began they had family as the cornerstone of their civilization and the subsequent values that went along with self-sacrifice to family. As the society evolved the individual and their needs and wants became most important. The society and civilization then went into a decline. So the study would refute the claim that <In short, societies which permit people to do much as they like simply out-perform those that don't>

    Now I suppose you want me to find the study?:eek:


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm well aware that various Meso and south-american cultures indulged in ritual animal and human sacrifice, just as did other ancient cultures of the Middle East as noted in the bible (see, for example, here, where human sacrifice seems to be regarded as a relatively normal activity). I won't bother referencing the bits in the bible where god tells people to murder each other, because we both know they're there.

    > Always bringing Darwin into it?

    You are free to reject what Darwin says, but it doesn't take away from the fact that his ideas describe life very simply, very clearly and very accurately. If you were to take the time to understand him properly (and it's not too difficult), you would find yourself with a far better understanding of how life operates than you currently seem to have, to judge by the content of some of your postings.

    > I read a study

    I'd certainly like to see that study, but you missed the point that I made which is that societies (I wasn't talking about families) which only make minimal attempts to regulate behaviour tend to out-perform those that are intrusive.

    I assume you probably don't accept this, because you seem to hold a common religious misconception that societies need tight and absolutist regulation to function.

    So instead, take a look at Wikipedia: anybody can quite easily ruin any article, but by and large, that doesn't happen -- even most edit-wars settle down after a while to a commonly-agreed text. It's an excellent example of the evolution of co-operative behaviour in a system with no regulation of content beyond the contributors themselves. Despite this complete absence of content regulation, Wikipedia has still succeeded in producing in just a few years, arguably the largest organized repository of information yet assembled, and for a financial cost of virtually nothing. There are plenty of other examples, but you should get the point from this basic one.

    > Now I suppose you want me to find the study?

    Yes, please :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote:


    I'd certainly like to see that study, but you missed the point that I made which is that societies (I wasn't talking about families) which only make minimal attempts to regulate behaviour tend to out-perform those that are intrusive.

    Actually I do accept the non-intrusive part of behaviour regulation and I did mis-understand your point. I think you are talking government or ruling class intervention into peoples lives?

    I am saying though is the mindset and attitude of the culture that is based on self-sacrifice as opposed to personal gratification and indulgence will thrive whereas once the individual becomes more important than the whole the society degrades.

    (Give me time for that study, because I can't remember where and when I saw it, just that I did)

    BTW my Darwin comment was tongue-in-cheek, as is this one: you without Darwin is like me without Christ.:D


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > the mindset and attitude of the culture that is based on self-sacrifice
    > as opposed to personal gratification and indulgence will thrive whereas
    > once the individual becomes more important than the whole the
    > society degrades.


    Yes, it certainly would. But as I think I made clear in a pm, this is not what happens in practice.

    Look at it this way -- like it or not, we're the product of millions of years of organisms who were able to get it together sufficiently well enough to be able to reproduce and make it to maturity successfully. If humanity had an inbuilt predelection for gross selfishness over and above our need to reproduce as a society, then we would have died out ages ago. However, we do exist, therefore that claimed inbuilt tendency towards self-destruction -- despite the ringing claims of religious leaders -- doesn't exist to the extent that it's any danger to us.

    > you without Darwin is like me without Christ

    Possibly. And possibly not. I take useful inputs from many, many more people than just Darwin. I'm not yet altogether sure whether or not you accept anything as useful, which wasn't attributed in your favourite edition of the bible to Christ. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote:

    Yes, it certainly would. But as I think I made clear in a pm, this is not what happens in practice.

    Look at it this way -- like it or not, we're the product of millions of years of organisms who were able to get it together sufficiently well enough to be able to reproduce and make it to maturity successfully. If humanity had an inbuilt predelection for gross selfishness over and above our need to reproduce as a society, then we would have died out ages ago. However, we do exist, therefore that claimed inbuilt tendency towards self-destruction -- despite the ringing claims of religious leaders -- doesn't exist to the extent that it's any danger to us.

    This is where we disagree philosophically. I would argue that man has survived since creation as a result of God's intervention in and through the lives of those that continually believe and trust Him. Revelation speaks of a time when God just says 'that's it, I'm coming and it's over.'

    BTW I'll be away for the weekend.

    robindch wrote:
    Possibly. And possibly not. I take useful inputs from many, many more people than just Darwin. I'm not yet altogether sure whether or not you accept anything as useful, which wasn't attributed in your favourite edition of the bible to Christ. :)

    Actually I do. I find that I can learn something from everybody. Might not agree with them, but I can learn.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭juddd


    you two must really love duking it out...it makes for an interesting read though...lol
    Maybe our morals are just built within us and can easily recognise evil, even if we have never experienced an evil deed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    juddd wrote:
    you two must really love duking it out...it makes for an interesting read though...lol
    Maybe our morals are just built within us and can easily recognise evil, even if we have never experienced an evil deed?

    BINGO, I think God did build into us a moral compass.

    PS. I do enjoy reading Robins posts and th eensuing debates..:)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    Christianity presents a picture of the world that isn't dualistic. What you propose Judd is that good is defined relatively by the existence of that which is not good and therefore, to know good, one must be familiar with bad.

    Christianity however argues that goodness is substantial in and of itself- it is not relative on other things to exist. Evil then is understood as a warping or mis-shaping of that which is bad. At the very base of Christianity, it argues that love is the force that motivated creation and that sustains it. Love is what is really true and when we turn love or good actions to abuse, we end up with a distorted thing called evil.

    Is that gibberish? ;)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > I would argue that man has survived since creation as a result of God's intervention
    > in and through the lives of those that continually believe and trust Him.


    You're certainly welcome to believe this, if you like.

    However, as I mentioned in a PM to you, what humans refer to as "co-operation" is a mathematical requirement of any sustainable system (particularly where the organism has some kind of memory) in the same way that 1+1=2, or that Axelrod's co-operative TIT-FOR-TAT social algorithm will out-perform any other one:

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/tittat/story.htm

    You can say that your god does this if you like, but god is no more necessary for creating the rules of a society to allow the society to sustain itself from generation to generation, than god is necessary for making tit-for-tat a better way of interacting than any other one. It's that way because *some* way of working has to be better than all the other ones, and what we humans think of as being "nice" just happens to be it.

    BTW, lest you think that humanity is unique in deriving co-operation, exactly the same kind of tit-for-tat behaviour is seen in the other primates, mammals, birds and, surprisingly, even back up the evolutionary tree as far as fish.

    I should, or possibly I should not, add that I don't find it particularly honest of many (most?) religious people to attempt to lay claim to what's a mathematical property of a system, and say that this property is somehow "caused" by their particular deity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote:

    However, as I mentioned in a PM to you, what humans refer to as "co-operation" is a mathematical requirement of any sustainable system (particularly where the organism has some kind of memory) in the same way that 1+1=2, or that Axelrod's co-operative TIT-FOR-TAT social algorithm will out-perform any other one:

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/tittat/story.htm
    .

    I played the TIT-for-TAT game and understand what it is getting at. However the problem with the U of T one is that it uses the same numbers of people in the game. In reality new players are being brought into the game on a daily basis which woulsd skew the results. Those new people may never become defectors and be 100% trustworthy and on the other side you would have those who would show up with a gun and just shoot everyone if they didn't get their own way.

    robindch wrote:

    BTW, lest you think that humanity is unique in deriving co-operation, exactly the same kind of tit-for-tat behaviour is seen in the other primates, mammals, birds and, surprisingly, even back up the evolutionary tree as far as fish.

    When you look at the natural world around us, animals do not have the foresight to play the game. The bird that picks the crocodiles teeth has no way of knowing the consequences of the action nor how the croc is benefitted. Nor does the croc have an understanding of the benefit he is deriving from the actions of the bird, otherwise he might say 'free meal'.
    God put the instinct and direction into the bird to get it's foodsource form the crocs mouth and the instinct within the croc to not eat said birds.
    I should, or possibly I should not, add that I don't find it particularly honest of many (most?) religious people to attempt to lay claim to what's a mathematical property of a system, and say that this property is somehow "caused" by their particular deity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭juddd


    Excelsior wrote:
    Is that gibberish? ;)

    Not at all, I think what you are saying is that we naturally know what is good and that the opposite of a good deed is easily recognised as a bad deed, i suppose if we lived in a peacfull society and never knew evil we would still be able to recognise it as the evil or bad deed because it is different from the norm.
    If it was a good thing in such a society to help a person in need and someone refused to help that person then that would be recognised as a bad or immoral deed as it would not be normal for a member of such a society to act in such a way to a person in need....hhmmmm


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > I played the TIT-for-TAT game and understand what it is getting at.

    Uh, TIT-FOR-TAT (TFT) is the name of a successful social strategy within Axelrod's iterated prisoner's dilemma universe. It's not a game.

    > However the problem with the U of T one is that it uses the same
    > numbers of people in the game. In reality new players are being
    > brought into the game on a daily basis which woulsd skew the results.
    > Those new people may never become defectors and be 100% trustworthy
    > and on the other side you would have those who would show up with a
    > gun and just shoot everyone if they didn't get their own way.


    You don't really understand what's happening, or why it's happening.

    To rephrase what I said above, TFT is an interaction strategy which (in simple terms) maximises the success of an organism in an environment over many generations. You can introduce 100% social or 100% antisocial elements and see how they get on (and they'll do well for a short while), but overall, and in the long term, they are not as successful as TFT. In summary, over long periods of time, TFT will, inevitably, become the dominant interaction strategy, because it's the best one. It does not become the dominant strategy because god makes it so, but because it is a mathematical property of the system. Can't say it simpler than that.

    > When you look at the natural world around us, animals do
    > not have the foresight to play the game.


    Why do you say this? The page I went to the trouble of finding for you reports on plenty of research which indicates that even fairly simple animals do have sufficient foresight to "play the game". Here's that page again:

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/tittat/story.htm

    > The bird that picks the crocodiles teeth has no way of knowing
    > the consequences of the action nor how the croc is benefitted.
    > Nor does the croc have an understanding of the benefit he is
    > deriving from the actions of the bird, otherwise he might say 'free meal'.


    Huh? The plover doesn't have to know how the crocodile is benefitted, all the bird's looking for is food in the form of parasites/bits of old food which it does "know about". And the crocodile clearly prefers to get these removed for him, than to having a quick meal. Why do you drop the most important facts of this natural interchange, in order to try to disprove the existence of co-operation?

    > God put the instinct and direction into the bird to get it's foodsource
    > form the crocs mouth and the instinct within the croc to not eat said birds.


    Do you really believe this? If this is so, then do you also believe that "god put the instinct into" the Loa Loa worm, to infect humans, via the horsefly, with a nasty eye-disease?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loa_loa_filariasis


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > Christianity however argues that goodness is substantial in and
    > of itself- it is not relative on other things to exist. Evil then is
    > understood as a warping or mis-shaping of that which is bad. [...]
    > Is that gibberish?


    I think I'd risk being banned if I gave an honest answer to that question.

    > Love is what is really true and when we turn love or good
    > actions to abuse, we end up with a distorted thing called evil.


    Reminds me of Terry Pratchett's (was it?) definition that light was "darkness lit up" :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    You know you wouldn't Robin. You also probably realise you are being more offensive by alluding to comments rather than making them.

    Pratchett was the mirrorred reflection of Christianity which holds that evil is light covered over.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > You also probably realise you are being more offensive
    > by alluding to comments rather than making them.


    Humble apologies for any offense caused -- I was going to say something else, but couldn't think of anything more polite than what I said. Mind you, I should have put a smiley after the first sentence as well as the second one :)

    Nonetheless, I still can't understand what you're getting at, because you're not defining love or evil in any basic terms, but in terms of each other which leads to a circular (and non-understanding-creating) definition. For example, the sentence which I quoted "when we turn love or good actions to abuse, we end up with a distorted thing called evil", well, I to me, that reads like "when we're bad, we're bad". Not sure if anybody else is having trouble with this defintion, but I'd certainly welcome a non-circular clarification, if I'm misreading it as I presume I must be.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    1 John 4:8- God is love.

    The action of God is the expression of love. Evil is when the action is diverted away from the original intent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭John Doe


    On evil: is it possible for the majority to ever do evil? I propose that it isn't: looking back through history, have the majority of the world's population ever been in favour of anything evil? Of course not. If they were, then it wasn't evil at the time.
    This might leave us with one of two choices: either humanity is such that the majority of people cannot do evil, or whatever the majority does is automatically not evil.
    Feel free to poke holes in this theory, it's work-in-progress. Please do it in a logical way though :)
    And also: maybe the reason no-one can define good and evil in terms of anything but each other is because it's not possible to. This would favour the second choice above, obviously enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭R0ot


    I wouldn't say its required, thats kinda like asking is cancer required. I think evil will always be there but it will take on different appearences in different regions or communities. Because we don't all consider the same things to be evil, i know plenty of people that think taro cards and palm reading is evil, but i don't. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    Of course the majority of people have been evil. I know I have behaved in evil. For an example that I doubt anyone can't share, I look with shame on the times as a teenager when I participated in or was passive as people in my class were bullied.

    We are self-deceitful. We acknowledge non-unionised slavish sweatshop conditions to be evil but we still buy clothes from the Far East made in these conditions. We obfuscate the issue by saying one can't tell either way if the clothes were produced in the bad sweatshops or the relatively good ones. But we don't analyse our actions with the same bar of measurement that we apply to others.

    Grand evil on a John Wayne Gacy level is thankfully rare but Rwanda is a perfect example of where ordinary people don't just stand back and let it happen but in the froth of evil and bloodlust get carried away and slaughter dozens of neighbours, friends and co-workers.

    There is a darkness in every human heart that all of history testifies to.


Advertisement