Does "good" and "evil" exist?

badabing106

Is the concept of good and evil merely a human construct, or does good and evil actually exist in nature? If it does exist, what are some examples of verifiable good and evil creatures?

One eyed Jack

It’s a human construct regarding moral standards, nature doesn’t have a conscience.

Your Face

That would be an ecumenical matter.

NIMAN

Human creation.

No animal could be evil surely.

They don't kill to inflict pain or suffering. They do it due to evolution and no other reason.

is_that_so

So not another Mr F thread?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

If by nature you mean the Natural world, then the concepts of good and evil don't exist. There are tenderness and savagery in nature but not the moral concepts of good and evil.

Graces7

badabing106 wrote: »

Is the concept of good and evil merely a human construct, or does good and evil actually exist in nature? If it does exist, what are some examples of verifiable good and evil creatures?

Creatures eg dogs and cats. can show and live deep loyalty and devotion and affection. OR viciousness. According to how we as humans with our knowledge of good and evil, treat them.

So yes and the responsibility s ours

Also some breeds of eg dogs are naturally more loving and loyal than others.

This applies to almost every critter we use. Our responsibility also

So they have the potential.

SO yes, and the responsibility is oursnr tae\hgppgdewjpw h t\messlnes\\\sooudu t\ dccaa

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

Creatures eg dogs and cats. can show and live deep loyalty and devotion and affection. OR viciousness. According to how we as humans with our knowledge of good and evil, treat them.

So yes and the responsibility s ours

Also some breeds of eg dogs are naturally more loving and loyal than others.

This applies to almost every critter we use. Our responsibility also

So they have the potential.

SO yes, and the responsibility is oursnr tae\hgppgdewjpw h t\messlnes\\\sooudu t\ dccaa

Do humans transfer the concepts of good & evil to dogs & cats via osmosis? You're projecting here.

theological

badabing106 wrote: »

Is the concept of good and evil merely a human construct, or does good and evil actually exist in nature? If it does exist, what are some examples of verifiable good and evil creatures?

If you don't believe in God it has to be a human construct because there is no objective source of moral truth. Moral judgements become relative and anything can be argued to be good or evil based on opinion.

I'm a Christian so I believe God has declared to us what is good and what is evil in His Word and most supremely in His Son Jesus Christ. Ultimately God will judge the world for our sin. Christianity provides a clear objective standard for what is good and what is evil. All humans have done things which are wicked. God gave His Son Jesus to die in our place so we can stand forgiven rather than condemned and we can stand as children of God adopted into His family.

If you want to find out more check out the Christianity forum on Boards.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Deleted User wrote: »

Do humans transfer the concepts of good & evil to dogs & cats via osmosis? You're projecting here.

We train them, or mistreat them, leading to character traits but it's not nature when we look at the behaviour of not only domesticated animals but those we have deliberately trained and taught acceptable traits.
Wild dog species and non domesticated cat species don't engage in goodness nor evil, they simply do what must be done for the survival of the species; be that adopting a communal sharing lifestyle or a solitary one. In all cases they will kill to eat, without compunction.

theological

theological wrote: »

Christianity provides a clear objective standard for what is good and what is evil.

"Objective" in your eyes. Thankfully you don't speak for me, or the human race at large.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

theological wrote: »

If you don't believe in God it has to be a human construct because there is no objective source of moral truth. Moral judgements become relative and anything can be argued to be good or evil based on opinion.

I'm a Christian so I believe God has declared to us what is good and what is evil in His Word and most supremely in His Son Jesus Christ. Ultimately God will judge the world for our sin. Christianity provides a clear objective standard for what is good and what is evil. All humans have done things which are wicked. God gave His Son Jesus to die in our place so we can stand forgiven rather than condemned and we can stand as children of God adopted into His family.

If you want to find out more check out the Christianity forum on Boards.

And, being a Christian, I agree with much of that. But do good and evil exist in Nature, is the real question.

corner of hells

Wasps are evil.

Particularly those ones hanging round the bottle bank on a summers eve.
Drunk on cheap Lidl wine , showing off, trying to impress their mates by stinging me.

Little flyin' drunken Nazi's.

Bobblehats

Is "man" and "woman" sexist?

Is it a social construct. God and the devil exists in everybody it's a matter of who we allow to win out. The two cannot coexist or they will be at odds with each other; creating inner turmoil.

Steve456

theological wrote: »

If you don't believe in God it has to be a human construct because there is no objective source of moral truth. Moral judgements become relative and anything can be argued to be good or evil based on opinion.

But there are many different gods suggested down the years - which one is the best to follow can only be based on opinion.

Or did you mean that your god is the real one, and all the others are human constructs?

One eyed Jack

theological wrote: »

Christianity provides a clear objective standard for what is good and what is evil.

Respectfully, I would have agreed with you up to that point. Christianity, by definition, does not, and can not, provide an objective standard of what is good and what is evil. It can provide standards, certainly, but those standards of good and evil are neither clear nor objective, and are the subject of millennia of interpretation by humans.

Feisar

NIMAN wrote: »

Human creation.

No animal could be evil surely.

They don't kill to inflict pain or suffering. They do it due to evolution and no other reason.

Go look at a cat playing with a mouse and come back to me.

theological

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Respectfully, I would have agreed with you up to that point. Christianity, by definition, does not, and can not, provide an objective standard of what is good and what is evil. It can provide standards, certainly, but those standards of good and evil are neither clear nor objective, and are the subject of millennia of interpretation by humans.

If you don't believe in God or that He is going to judge the world objectively on His standards then I can understand why you think there is no objective morality. I just disagree with your assumption. If God judges the world on His standards then the moral standard is objective and the only interpretation that will matter will be His. I know I've failed to live according to God's standard. That's why I'm thankful for God's grace in Jesus Christ.

I understand you may disagree.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Feisar wrote: »

Go look at a cat playing with a mouse and come back to me.

Yes, I'd rephrase it to wild animals. Domesticated cats play with their prey because they have an innate instinct to hunt but no longer need to do so for food. Some wild animals will give prey still alive to their young so they may practice their hunting skills, but it's not done with evil intent.

nthclare

I find it hard to get my head around people worshiping a so called diety which sacrificed his son by torturing him so as to manipulate unfortunates into thinking its ok to kill one's child for the good of humanity.
Actually the Abrahamic god seems to like sh1t testing people and suggesting that they kill their kids to validate themselves with their oppressor.

Thou shalt not kill.

GOD Hi Micke im feeling a bit insecure today, so will you kill your young lad there to make me feel more secure about myself as I get a sense you're not worshipping me enough

Mike hopefully goes to the therapist or psychologist to find out why some imaginary talking fire appears in front of him.

One eyed Jack

theological wrote: »

If you don't believe in God or that He is going to judge the world objectively on His standards then I can understand why you think there is no objective morality. I just disagree with your assumption. If God judges the world on His standards then the moral standard is objective and the only interpretation that will matter will be His. I know I've failed to live according to God's standard. That's why I'm thankful for God's grace in Jesus Christ.

I understand you may disagree.

I do believe in God, and I am Christian, but binding morality to God and suggesting that is somehow an objective standard when it is clearly not a standard that is outside of human perception means that Christianity can not provide an objective standard. That’s playing fast and loose with the word ‘objective’, and given how many different ways in which the word of God can be and has been interpreted, the standards offered by Christianity and the various denominations within it are anything but clear.

theological

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do believe in God, and I am Christian, but binding morality to God and suggesting that is somehow an objective standard when it is clearly not a standard that is outside of human perception means that Christianity can not provide an objective standard. That’s playing fast and loose with the word ‘objective’, and given how many different ways in which the word of God can be and has been interpreted, the standards offered by Christianity and the various denominations within it are anything but clear.

Who said I'm "binding morality to God"?

That's the wrong way around from a Biblical perspective. God has spoken in His Word so if anything His standards are binding on us.

If the judgement that God gives to the world is objective (as Scripture says it will be) then the moral standard will be objectively binding because all people everywhere will be judged according to it by God.

The point about denominations misses the point somewhat. It doesn't matter what the Catholic Church or Presbyterians or Anglican church thinks about X. What matters is what God thinks.

Hopefully faithful churches will look to Scripture rather than themselves but God's standard is His, not ours to play with.

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

Do humans transfer the concepts of good & evil to dogs & cats via osmosis? You're projecting here.

No; and no I am not projecting. We can only assess and experience eg good and evil via acts. They are not valid as abstracts. Only as how they are lived.

The way we treat and care for and love animals can change them to more loving and yes selfless creatures. Lok at eg Grayfriars Bobby.

Nothing to do with osmosis but our living of good and evil.

And this is something I see on a daily basis.

And we can change a wild creature into a loving and loyal one by our treatment of it. There is thus no such thing as defining a creature by its wild state, Children can be equally feral as wild critters unless they are trained.

Graces7

theological wrote: »

If you don't believe in God it has to be a human construct because there is no objective source of moral truth. Moral judgements become relative and anything can be argued to be good or evil based on opinion.

I'm a Christian so I believe God has declared to us what is good and what is evil in His Word and most supremely in His Son Jesus Christ. Ultimately God will judge the world for our sin. Christianity provides a clear objective standard for what is good and what is evil. All humans have done things which are wicked. God gave His Son Jesus to die in our place so we can stand forgiven rather than condemned and we can stand as children of God adopted into His family.

If you want to find out more check out the Christianity forum o

Better to read the Gospel of Matthew.. ]

Graces7

Feisar wrote: »

Go look at a cat playing with a mouse and come back to me.

Acat will play with a toy filled with catnip, or a feather and as for prey drive? We are far worse than any critter.

Graces7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do believe in God, and I am Christian, but binding morality to God and suggesting that is somehow an objective standard when it is clearly not a standard that is outside of human perception means that Christianity can not provide an objective standard. That’s playing fast and loose with the word ‘objective’, and given how many different ways in which the word of God can be and has been interpreted, the standards offered by Christianity and the various denominations within it are anything but clear.[/QUOTE



Just read Matthew 25 onwards please. Stop overthinking what is utterly simple. Jesus is our gold standard, pure and simple. LIVE His Word.

olestoepoke

The seagulls in north county Dublin are the epitome of evil.

There is no 'good' or 'evil'
People of all backgrounds do commit bad acts.
Good people can do bad things.
Also, people others think of as bad, do good things.
It doesn't apply in nature at all, animals have no moral sense of right or wrong, or good or evil.

peddlelies

One eyed Jack

theological wrote: »

Who said I'm "binding morality to God"?

That's the wrong way around from a Biblical perspective. God has spoken in His Word so if anything His standards are binding on us.

If the judgement that God gives to the world is objective (as Scripture says it will be) then the moral standard will be objectively binding because all people everywhere will be judged according to it by God.

The point about denominations misses the point somewhat. It doesn't matter what the Catholic Church or Presbyterians or Anglican church thinks about X. What matters is what God thinks.

Hopefully faithful churches will look to Scripture rather than themselves but God's standard is His, not ours to play with.

It’s not missing the point. It is the point. Your interpretation of scripture is not the same as that of the Catholic Church or any of the other various denominations of Christianity which interpret scripture according to what they believe God intended for humanity, so to say that your interpretation is objective and others aren’t is basically putting your interpretations of God’s word forward as what you claim is an objective standard provided by Christianity. I don’t agree that there is anything objective in a subjective interpretation of God’s word.

Bobblehats

bubblypop wrote: »

There is no 'good' or 'evil'
People of all backgrounds do commit bad acts.
Good people can do bad things.
Also, people others think of as bad, do good things.
It doesn't apply in nature at all, animals have no moral sense of right or wrong, or good or evil.

There is a tug of war inside of you

Bobblehats

Bobblehats wrote: »

There is a tug of war inside of you

Really? Why?

Bobblehats

bubblypop wrote: »

Really? Why?

Who knows why, just acknowledge it

Ipso

Brynlee Substantial Latch wrote: »

Yes, I'd rephrase it to wild animals. Domesticated cats play with their prey because they have an innate instinct to hunt but no longer need to do so for food. Some wild animals will give prey still alive to their young so they may practice their hunting skills, but it's not done with evil intent.

The way some Orcas play with seals is pretty sadistic.

Bobblehats

Bobblehats wrote: »

Who knows why, just acknowledge it

What?
No, I have no conflict & maybe you could explain your statement to me?

Bobblehats

bubblypop wrote: »

What?
No, I have no conflict & maybe you could explain your statement to me?

For it is only then, that we can oversee the outcome.

Don't leave it in the lap of the gods..

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Ipso wrote: »

The way some Orcas play with seals is pretty sadistic.

It's now thought that they toss and shake the seals to loosen the animals' skin, which they don't eat.

Bobblehats

Bobblehats wrote: »

For it is only then, that we can oversee the outcome.

Don't leave it in the lap of the gods..

Ah what?
Forget it!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bubblypop wrote: »

Ah what?
Forget it!

He's just baiting you.

Bobblehats

bubblypop wrote: »

Ah what?
Forget it!

Ok.

Ipso

Brynlee Substantial Latch wrote: »

It's now thought that they toss and shake the seals to loosen the animals' skin, which they don't eat.

Like a drunk with a snack box.

Strumms

bubblypop wrote: »

There is no 'good' or 'evil'
People of all backgrounds do commit bad acts. U
Good people can do bad things.
Also, people others think of as bad, do good things.
It doesn't apply in nature at all, animals have no moral sense of right or wrong, or good or evil.

There have been scores of evil and horrendous acts committed by non believers, AND by Christian people by people who identify and ‘practice’ as good Christians.... child sex abuse in the church being one very public evil... followed by cover ups of course .

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

There have been scores of evil and horrendous acts committed by non believers, AND by Christian people by people who identify and ‘practice’ as good Christians.... child sex abuse in the church being one very public evil... followed by cover ups of course .

I'm not sure where the Christian thing comes into it?
I'm just talking about society not religion.

But yea, bad things are done by 'good' people, & good things are done by 'bad' people

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure where the Christian thing comes into it?
I'm just talking about society not religion.

But yea, bad things are done by 'good' people, & good things are done by 'bad' people

I was thinking the same. The thread has drifted into religion, which has nothing to do with the question you raised - unless belief in a God affects the non existent moral code of my neighbour's cat.

MoonUnit75

Chimps have been known to torture other chimps.

Strumms

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure where the Christian thing comes into it?
I'm just talking about society not religion.

But yea, bad things are done by 'good' people, & good things are done by 'bad' people

I was probably referring to Christian beliefs rather than religious Christians themselves only...

ILoveYourVibes

badabing106 wrote: »

Is the concept of good and evil merely a human construct, or does good and evil actually exist in nature? If it does exist, what are some examples of verifiable good and evil creatures?

Moral objectivism vrs Moral relativism.

Morals being a human construct that differ from culture to culture or person to person is moral relativism. That there are distinct morals apart from people or even a supernatural being like god is moral objectivism.

Moral relativism seems to describe the real world particularly in pluralistic societies. But when you start talking and debating law ....moral relativism becomes a lot more useful as an idea. For example its moral relativism that allows police to lie to suspects to gain information.
Relativism says morality depends on the circumstance the context the culture the time and place. Moral objectivism tends to say lying is just wrong full stop. Its wrong in every culture or situation. Although someone might debate this.
Moral relativism seeks to find if morality differs according to personality , situation, context , culture and between different people.

Also to the DEGREE to which something is wrong. Is it MORE wrong for an adult stranger to hit a baby that it is for them to hit someone their own size whom they might do less damage to.

The whole would you let one person die to save millions debate? Well what if that person was your daughter? I mean it might look on paper that you were doing the right thing ..but in reality i think that person might be a sociopath. If they can let their daughter die for strangers they don't even know. But then sacrificing oneself ....that's again different.

Or is it just right to save as many as you can sacrificing as few as you can no matter what? I mean are people just like numbers?

So the one vrs the many question is something you can answer with moral relativism or objectivism.

Meh i like a balance.

What about necessary evil?

If to hate is a sin then you must sin to hate and show contempt for the Devil.

If you have no choice but to choose between two evils? And you choose the lesser evil? Aren't you still committing an evil deed?

To be scrupulous over mere nothings, is that very moral or immoral?

In the animal kingdom there is a lot of self preservation. There is a species of monkey where the males kidnap babies from mothers to gift to other males to earn their favor. They then give the babies back to their mom's. Its pretty traumatic though.

Some animals cannibalize their own young. It's unclear what circumstances provoke this. But i can't think of anything that could provoke a human mother to eat her baby.

Also some individuals in a species show less of these aggressive cold traits and are more sociable.

So yeah i think animals can be assholes.


Sorry I went off on one.

greencap

Well consciousness exists, and intent exists.
And destruction and creation exist.

And the ability to comprehend from another person's perspective exists.

So maybe evil/good is a vague concept, maybe its fleeting, like a process.

Like cooking exists, but it's not tangible, it takes several factors coming together over time... cooking exists but not in any one place/time.

You can't touch cooking or driving or addition, or other processes.
Doesn't mean they don't exist.

So good/evil are maybe processes happening over time, involving several factors coming together, conscious decision to create/destroy in such a way that the other person experiences what you intend.

ILoveYourVibes

Strumms wrote: »

I was probably referring to Christian beliefs rather than religious Christians themselves only...

When you talk about an abstract set of beliefs its then moral objectivism becomes useful.

It makes abstract conversions about morality easier to talk about.

It becomes hard if you wish to talk about individual Christians from different cultures.

Traditionally Christianity was a very objectivity system. But today its harder to see that as Christians are not just meeting Christians from their own small communities but other Christians from communities half way across the world etc.

Christianity used to worry about pluralism from outside Christianity as they knew their followers only might meet people from their own towns. Now they worry about pluralism from within their own religion a lot.

ILoveYourVibes

greencap wrote: »

Well consciousness exists, and intent exists.
And destruction and creation exist.

And the ability to comprehend from another person's perspective exists.

So maybe evil/good is a vague concept, maybe its fleeting, like a process.

Like cooking exists, but it's not tangible, it takes several factors coming together over time... cooking exists but not in any one place/time.

You can't touch cooking or driving or addition, or other processes.
Doesn't mean they don't exist.

So good/evil are maybe processes happening over time, involving several factors coming together, conscious decision to create/destroy in such a way that the other person experiences what you intend.

The search to understand the properties of ethics (as in what they are ..where they are etc) is called metaethics.

It deals with the metaphysical, epistemological and semantic properties of ethics or ethical systems.

It's very interesting

ILoveYourVibes

Feisar wrote: »

Go look at a cat playing with a mouse and come back to me.

But is that cat able to really understand what it's doing?


Does the cat think the mouse is just a toy? Is a cat able to understand the mouse can feel pain?

Does the ability to make moral decisions require a level of awareness and consciousness?

Also there is a type of morality called 'natural morality' it is based on how animals evolved.

I mean spiders are horrible they are tiny vampires. Their entire home is one big trap. However ..they are just being spiders doing what they have evolved to do.