The will as the seat of all.

bb87

How we live (actions) is governed by our beliefs.
What we believe is governed by our perceptions (chosen)
Our perceptions are governed by our will.
Our will is governed by the person we want to become

The kind of person we want to become, two extremes:

<---Heavenly creature (good)

---

Hellish creature (evil)--->

Torakx

I think you make great points.
The last part is still a question for me, or holds a lot of questions.

The kind of person we want to become, two extremes:

<---Heavenly creature (good)

---

Hellish creature (evil)--->

Maybe there could be a line drawn vertically between good and evil, at the top might be generative and at the bottom degenerative.
Then draw a circle around that cross.

What if I a person wishes to help others by making their life more difficult in specific ways.
It comes down to perception and a belief that what we are doing or thinking is good or evil.
What if good and evil, right and wrong, don't exist?

I would say then that maybe the horizontal line is belief(past and present thought) and the vertical line represents actions in the present. Up towards growth and down towards decay.
I would prefer to fall bang in the middle I think.
An evil act might have good intentions towards growth, but appear evil via belief.
Likewise an apparently good act, could have degenerative effects.

Joe1919

bb87 wrote: »

...What we believe is governed by our perceptions (chosen)....

As regards the above, I would like to suggest that not all our perceptions are chosen. e.g. A child born into poverty/abuse/war etc. will have different perceptions to one born with a silver spoon etc.
So we have to make some kind of allowances for luck/fortune/destiny as well as the problem of free will.
In Christianity, there is the whole debate about predestination.

I like the way some try to solve these problems with the Doctrine of Grace i.e. We often need help or a lucky break to get us away from a bad place. As the old prayer says...

there but for the grace of God go I

Black Swan

bb87 wrote: »

<---Heavenly creature (good)

---

Hellish creature (evil)--->

I would suggest that the two dimensional good vs evil view is a very limited theological construct, and a dichotomy that over-simplifies and distorts the observation of our extraordinarily complex natural world. Such dichotomies tend to be heavily value-laden, biased, and unbalanced to the extent that one is preferred over the other in a highly subjective, hierarchical fashion (Jacques Derrida).

This good vs evil dichotomy may suffer from the edicts and repetitious affirmations associated with various institutionalised religious dogmas that may confound observation of our natural world. To step outside of one's dogma may be considered sinful, thereby limiting observation, or the ability to change one's perceptions given contrary evidence. Compounded with this is that one religious dogma may be in opposition and conflict with another; e.g., what is evil for one may be good for another.

More could be said, but at this point I find little or no utility by including good vs evil views within a conceptual framework used to guide our exploration of the natural world, or to make choices along the way, be they philosophical or practical.

raah!

It's really saying nothing to say that a dichotomy separating "good" behaviour from "evil" behaviour is value-laden or subjective. And to say so as a criticism of any means of choosing behaviour also assumes some kind of ultimate background "true good" or "true evil". If you are a relativist or a moral non-realist then the statement is tautological and not very useful, if you are not, as perhaps the op isn't, then it equally doesn't apply.

There is also no "contrary evidence" to prefer one value system over another, unless you have assumed some background ultimate moral reality. A description of the world (an exploration of the world, in the words above) , is a completely different thing from a prescription for how to act in the world (which is what is actually in question there). In a prescription for behaviour there is always going to be a "dichotomy", or the kind of scale given by the op, between appropriate or inappropriate behaviour, however these behaviours are described (good/evil, useful/useless etc.) .