[Gust Hubb]

Title says it all. Seems like an apt conversation for this forum, where the central books of the site deal with such ambiguities.

Actually I've been thinking a lot about it lately. Especially with all the conversations about "sucking it up" and being strong. While reading Best Served Cold by Joe Abercrombie.

And I think about those who have been hurt, like my neighbor who was assaulted last month and now after getting shoulder shrugs from those she thought as friends, wondering who is truly good and who is evil.

So is there good and evil? Or are such concepts constructed from societal norms that themselves are constructs of an overthinking species. More specifically, are there good and bad people? Can people be really be placed on that spectrum on one side or the other or somewhere in between? How in the world does a cute innocent child become what most consider to be a monster, like Gacy? Am I naive in thinking most people I meet seem good and well intentioned, even if misled?

Mods, if this topic has been tried before and ended in disaster, feel free to delete. I at least wanted to write this down since it has been bothering me a lot lately.

[Silencer]

D: I would have thought that, surely you, of all people, would have gone and found then necro'd the previous thread, Gust! I'll go see if I can find it, 'cuz it had some great debate in it...


EDIT: Here you are, Gusty. It was in the Religion sub-forum. Linky-click-me-please. One of my favourite discussions on the forum.

[worry]

There was also the one where everyone argued about Kallor. But I suppose it's full of book spoilers.

[Silencer]

Quite possibly...I don't remember that one? XD

[worry]

It was from that grand arbiter of good and evil, Haroos. And it's from the Toll The Hounds thread, so everything up to that is fair game: http://forum.malazan...showtopic=18409

[Kanese S's]

Perhaps someone who is evil as an adult was evil as a child. My experiences as a child made me very cynical about the supposed innocence of children.

I think some people hurt others because they are hurt themselves, some people hurt others because they are afraid, and some people hurt others because they are just terrible people. I don't think there's a universal answer.

[Brujah]

I'm a good guy.

But I worry about worry.

He frightens me.

Leaning towards evil for worry. Evil genius.

[Brujah]

On a more serious note.

I absolutely believe in the concepts of both good and evil.

There's actually an hour long episode on the Discovery Channel about Evil, and what makes people do evil things.

[Macros]

My wording will probably be incorrect, I've never been very good at articulating what I mean.

I think good and evil, are very hard things to define.

People can be mean petty and cruel on a daily basis yet still show incredible compassion in other instances.

I would every single person on this forum, no matter how they view themselves, has committed an act at some stage in their life that could be construed as "evil" from someone's point of view.

To quote Boondock saints, well paraphrase I forget the exact wording, Evil is only allowed to flourish becaus eof the indifference of good men.

If we see something that we know, or feel, to be wrong, be it in a moral or whatever sense (and by this I mean our own considerations of wrong and right, as IMO there is no exact definition of a right or a wrong act), and do nothing to try stop or prevent it, does that make us evil people as we did nothing?
Taking no action can be construed as compliance (compliance isnt the word I'm looking for there, I mean like an accessory in a crime situation) in some circumstances. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, I tihnk I'm angling at its very hard to paint people as good or evil when there are so many variables to be considered, and who really knows what peoples entire motivatoins for any given act are? You would have to be a mind reader to really get to the bottom of a persons drive.

To make it even tougher, is someone raised to believe what they do is inherently right, to the point of indoctrination (sasy in the case of religious fanatics or the like, possibly the crusades where killing and "infidel" was not considered a crime, and people were told as much by some members of the church, who were considered the authority on moral obligations and considerations at the time) an evil man/ woman for carry out their actions.
They would certainly be painted as evil by the victims, but in their minds, their victims are evil and so eradicating them is the right and "good" thing to do. One might argue that there's a voice somewhere inside everyone, that tells our conscience that our actions are right or wrong, but I'm fairly sure my sense of right and wrong was instilled into me by my parents. Whilst information is much more freely available these days and it is much easier to form your own, informed, opinions on current events and issues, what you are raised to believe is a hard thing to shake. I've had the debate before that organised religion still has entirely too much influence on peoples personal beliefs and morals, although many religions have some great ideals, love and forgiveness etc, the nature of organised religion puts too much power in the hands of the clergy, well not so much in this more open technological age. But still, I gained most of perspective of what is right and wrong from my parents and probably primary school teachers. One and all were christian folk who were raised, years earlier, with the same or similar moral code. Everything were think is influenced by those around us, the media and what we are exposed to on a regular basis, and modern man, for the availability of informatoin in this new technological age, is lazy for the most and swallows whatever is fed to them. People want to be told how to act so they can justify themselves with minimal effort, sheep mentality has always ruled the mob. So does being lazy and following another's hand and attributing blame when something is judged to be wrong make one evil?
I don't know
I think I've lost my way on this one, I tihnk I was saying its unfairt to judge someone evil out of hand as ypou simply dont have the information at hand to fully judge their actions

[HoosierDaddy]

Complicit was the word you were looking for, Maccy.

[Silencer]

Brujah, on 01 July 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

On a more serious note.

I absolutely believe in the concepts of both good and evil.

There's actually an hour long episode on the Discovery Channel about Evil, and what makes people do evil things.

Unless this documentary manages to prove WHAT evil is, that's a wasted hour. If it's just talking about evil from a certain societal point of view, then it could still be interesting and informative, though, as long as they realize that evil is not an absolute. XD

Macros, on 01 July 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

I would every single person on this forum, no matter how they view themselves, has committed an act at some stage in their life that could be construed as "evil" from someone's point of view.

Thus why evil is a RELATIVE attribution not an objective, concrete absolute standard.

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on 01 July 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Brujah, on 01 July 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

On a more serious note.

I absolutely believe in the concepts of both good and evil.

There's actually an hour long episode on the Discovery Channel about Evil, and what makes people do evil things.

Unless this documentary manages to prove WHAT evil is, that's a wasted hour. If it's just talking about evil from a certain societal point of view, then it could still be interesting and informative, though, as long as they realize that evil is not an absolute. XD

Macros, on 01 July 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

I would every single person on this forum, no matter how they view themselves, has committed an act at some stage in their life that could be construed as "evil" from someone's point of view.

Thus why evil is a RELATIVE attribution not an objective, concrete absolute standard.

You can state it is not objective all you want. You can also state the sky isn't really blue. In this case, in our current world, evil is not subjective. False moral equivalencies just shade the greys for people who would abuse others and pretend all manners of misdeeds are of the same equivalence. They are not.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 01 July 2012 - 08:41 AM

[Primateus]

I believe in right and wrong, empathy and lack thereof. I suppose we use evil as description for what's wrong and un-empathic, but I don't think there's anything that's inherently good or evil, these are man-made concepts. Then again, you could say the same thing about right and wrong I guess...

[Silencer]

HoosierDaddy, on 01 July 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Silencer, on 01 July 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Brujah, on 01 July 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

On a more serious note.

I absolutely believe in the concepts of both good and evil.

There's actually an hour long episode on the Discovery Channel about Evil, and what makes people do evil things.

Unless this documentary manages to prove WHAT evil is, that's a wasted hour. If it's just talking about evil from a certain societal point of view, then it could still be interesting and informative, though, as long as they realize that evil is not an absolute. XD

Macros, on 01 July 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

I would every single person on this forum, no matter how they view themselves, has committed an act at some stage in their life that could be construed as "evil" from someone's point of view.

Thus why evil is a RELATIVE attribution not an objective, concrete absolute standard.

You can state it is not objective all you want. You can also state the sky isn't really blue. In this case, in our current world, evil is not subjective. False moral equivalencies just shade the greys for people who would abuse others and pretend all manners of misdeeds are of the same equivalence. They are not.

Uhm, no. It is very subjective. Simply because you consider something 'evil' does not negate the fact that this is true only from your perspective. Consider abortion. Consider gay marriage. Consider euthanasia (voluntary or otherwise). Now explain to me how some people can consider these things wrong, evil, or abhorrent, while others take the exact opposite stance? You still claim that morality, that right and wrong, that good and evil are absolute?

What of the differences of less import; breaking promises? Different levels of promise breaking?

Just because society in general in certain specific countries have a set of common morals does not make them the absolute arbiter of true good and evil. Otherwise we would have stagnated YEARS ago. The fact that we have some clearly defined lines doesn't make all good and evil absolute, nor does it mean that we are correct in our current attributions. The fact that I can even see things from the other side - whether I agree with that side or not - is enough to render the argument moot.

And the sky isn't blue. Not really. It merely appears that way in our visual spectrum due to the refraction of light through the atmosphere. So nyah.

[Macros]

Is the cat evil for toying with the mouse before killing it?

[Silencer]

Macros, on 01 July 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Is the cat evil for toying with the mouse before killing it?

Can animals BE evil?

And considering that humans are animals...

>.>


Seriously, the very idea of good and evil is a HUMAN INVENTION. It's just our natural inclination to attribute higher significance to ourselves that makes us think it is actually some universal constant and that our current generation has found the proper shape of said constant. *sigh*

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on 01 July 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 01 July 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Silencer, on 01 July 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Brujah, on 01 July 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

On a more serious note.

I absolutely believe in the concepts of both good and evil.

There's actually an hour long episode on the Discovery Channel about Evil, and what makes people do evil things.

Unless this documentary manages to prove WHAT evil is, that's a wasted hour. If it's just talking about evil from a certain societal point of view, then it could still be interesting and informative, though, as long as they realize that evil is not an absolute. XD

Macros, on 01 July 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

I would every single person on this forum, no matter how they view themselves, has committed an act at some stage in their life that could be construed as "evil" from someone's point of view.

Thus why evil is a RELATIVE attribution not an objective, concrete absolute standard.

You can state it is not objective all you want. You can also state the sky isn't really blue. In this case, in our current world, evil is not subjective. False moral equivalencies just shade the greys for people who would abuse others and pretend all manners of misdeeds are of the same equivalence. They are not.

<snip>

And the sky isn't blue. Not really. It merely appears that way in our visual spectrum due to the refraction of light through the atmosphere. So nyah.

That's my point. It IS blue for the mass majority. Unquestioningly blue. It doesn't matter if that's merely a facade of the truth. The same slight of hand is pulled with good and evil. You might think all morality is subjective. But for the mass majority, my friend, it is certainly NOT.

Popular opinion doesn't equal right. But neither does your subjective opinion that something is subjective itself make an objective opinion wrong. It is individual and when the mass individuals perpetuate something as right and wrong then culturally that thing is right or wrong.

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on 01 July 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Macros, on 01 July 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Is the cat evil for toying with the mouse before killing it?

Can animals BE evil?

And considering that humans are animals...

>.>


Seriously, the very idea of good and evil is a HUMAN INVENTION. It's just our natural inclination to attribute higher significance to ourselves that makes us think it is actually some universal constant and that our current generation has found the proper shape of said constant. *sigh*

What is your solution to this problem? If we are animals made smarter and merely know that we are animals made smarter, then what? Are our human made systems of morality simply Darwinian codes to perpetuate the species as best? To advance certain peoples?

[Silencer]

HoosierDaddy, on 01 July 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

Silencer, on 01 July 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 01 July 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Silencer, on 01 July 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Brujah, on 01 July 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

On a more serious note.

I absolutely believe in the concepts of both good and evil.

There's actually an hour long episode on the Discovery Channel about Evil, and what makes people do evil things.

Unless this documentary manages to prove WHAT evil is, that's a wasted hour. If it's just talking about evil from a certain societal point of view, then it could still be interesting and informative, though, as long as they realize that evil is not an absolute. XD

Macros, on 01 July 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

I would every single person on this forum, no matter how they view themselves, has committed an act at some stage in their life that could be construed as "evil" from someone's point of view.

Thus why evil is a RELATIVE attribution not an objective, concrete absolute standard.

You can state it is not objective all you want. You can also state the sky isn't really blue. In this case, in our current world, evil is not subjective. False moral equivalencies just shade the greys for people who would abuse others and pretend all manners of misdeeds are of the same equivalence. They are not.

<snip>

And the sky isn't blue. Not really. It merely appears that way in our visual spectrum due to the refraction of light through the atmosphere. So nyah.

That's my point. It IS blue for the mass majority. Unquestioningly blue. It doesn't matter if that's merely a facade of the truth. The same slight of hand is pulled with good and evil. You might think all morality is subjective. But for the mass majority, my friend, it is certainly NOT.

Popular opinion doesn't equal right. But neither does your subjective opinion that something is subjective itself make an objective opinion wrong. It is individual and when the mass individuals perpetuate something as right and wrong then culturally that thing is right or wrong.

Which has a name. Cultural RELATIVISM. Which is what I first said. Then look how you lay out your point: "It is individual". Aka. IT IS SUBJECTIVE. When there is mass confluence of subjective opinion that does not derive an ABSOLUTE. Also way to ignore most of my post and focus on the rebuttal to your argument by analogy.

God exists for the mass majority. That doesn't mean that God DOES exist. Your argument is also ridiculous. My subjective opinion that something is subjective doesn't make an objective OPINION wrong? 1. No such thing as an objective OPINION, only an objective POSITION, 2. if you're claiming you have objective proof that good and evil are absolute I'd LOVE to hear it; because I'm pretty sure that one hasn't been found yet. You know, given everyone still debates the fuck out of it. >.>

[Silencer]

HoosierDaddy, on 01 July 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Silencer, on 01 July 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Macros, on 01 July 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Is the cat evil for toying with the mouse before killing it?

Can animals BE evil?

And considering that humans are animals...

>.>


Seriously, the very idea of good and evil is a HUMAN INVENTION. It's just our natural inclination to attribute higher significance to ourselves that makes us think it is actually some universal constant and that our current generation has found the proper shape of said constant. *sigh*

What is your solution to this problem? If we are animals made smarter and merely know that we are animals made smarter, then what? Are our human made systems of morality simply Darwinian codes to perpetuate the species as best? To advance certain peoples?

Who said it was a problem? I certainly don't see a problem with that setup...

As to your question; yes, they're constructs designed to help ourselves. To increase self-preservation. All it takes is a couple of people to think "I don't want X to happen to me" for the basis of a social contract to form. Once the system has become thoroughly established it grows into larger forms and starts serving more specific functions, but it all comes down to the same end result.