The problem of why there is evil.

@Poseidon,

The problem of why there's evil, regardless there's God or not, is because humans have this thing called free will.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Haha, you thanked Aedes' post and then stated the exact opposite of what he said.

Let me ask you this: Would you need to have experienced sadness to describe happiness?

Light is not the opposite of darkness, but we need both to notice then.

Yes, you would. I have personally never lived a life where I didnt felt sadness and I dont think you have either, and I dont believe any of us would be able to even acknowledge happiness under such circunstances.

@manored,

manored wrote:

I have personally never lived a life where I didnt felt sadness and I dont think you have either, and I dont believe any of us would be able to even acknowledge happiness under such circunstances.

We would. You feel happiness unto itself, not in contraposition to sadness. You feel grief unto itself, not in contraposition to happiness.

@manored,

manored wrote:

Light is not the opposite of darkness, but we need both to notice then.

Yes, you would. I have personally never lived a life where I didnt felt sadness and I dont think you have either, and I dont believe any of us would be able to even acknowledge happiness under such circunstances.

I think you can do both, for example, i was miserable because of the way my life had been and when i changed it i was extremely happy because it was a darn sight better than what it was in comparison and that made me happy.
But other times i have been fine, bumbling along quite contently not sad and then something happens and it improves my mood not because i was sad to begin with but it was a good thing that happened to me, what im trying to say is that i didnt have to experience sadness or be sad in order for someone to come along and make my day! Smile

@manored,

manored wrote:

Yes, you would. I have personally never lived a life where I didnt felt sadness and I dont think you have either, and I dont believe any of us would be able to even acknowledge happiness under such circunstances.

Let me try to clarify something in your mind:

We would experience happiness even without sadness. There's no doubt about this. And what I mean is: We would feel this feeling - the chemical process would still occur and we would physically be induced to feel this.

However, I think the key here is I don't think we'd call it "happiness". For if sadness did not exist, there would be no dichotomy with which to compare. The positive connotation for the term we've dubbed this feeling "happiness" would not exist. If everyone felt "happy", it would just be a regular state of being.

Thus, what I think you mean to say is you can better relish in your happiness after having felt sadness. Psychologically you can appreciate happiness after having been through emotional turmoil. And to this I agree, but remember each process is independent physically, and it's only in your mind do you find this appreciation.

@Poseidon,

I never said you needed good in order to have evil or sadness in order to have happiness, what I said is that you couldnt reconize or describe one of then winhout knowledge of the other.

@manored,

manored wrote:

I never said you needed good in order to have evil or sadness in order to have happiness, what I said is that you couldnt reconize or describe one of then winhout knowledge of the other.

Thank you for clarifying manored. I was reading through the thread and I almost said your very words haha... If we can't recognize something then why does it have any significance. Sure, we will be able to experience this "happiness" but without sadness we are oblivious to the natural feeling. If we had started out in the deepest of depression then happiness could be a low-scale depression for some. If you have ever been on ecstasy you can feel an unprecedented amount of happiness because your brain is releasing dopamine and seratonin into the brain. If the feeling of "rollin' on X" was a continual feeling experienced by everyone at all times then there would be no differential to compare with and therefore we would have no depth to the feeling.

It may be true that good and evil are the opposite of nothing but that does not mean that differentiating between the two does not create the depth to their meanings. A white picture on a white piece of paper is invisible but if the picture is black on white paper it can be created in great detail. From the very basic atom we find that there are positives and negatives in our universe regardless of if they are the opposite of nothing via existence.

@Justin,

I've always thought about that question, can good exist without evil. Each time I do I seem to end up in a different place. However, more recently I've come to an answer that I'm personally satisfied with. I think the question here is that: Can one define what is good, without having a concept of what is evil?

My answer to the above question is an indefinite no. I could argue that I define 'good' to be an effect that is positive on myself and the people around me. This however brings up a new question: How can one define positive without having a concept of negative. I say my answer to be indefinite because someone may prove to me that you can. However, at this point in time, I find that any answer to this question can become a redundant argument.

@oldskooler85,

The concept of good and evil are useful only in discussions of morality, and even then one must be conscious of the long term effects of a given action in order to qualify that action as either good or evil; neither exists as an objective truth.

@Doorsopen,

In my opinion the concept of good in evil is our way to describe if an action is healthy or unhealthy to our world. It is a subconscious prediction of the repercussions of an action which are different for every man. It may simply be an imprinted blueprint from the cosmos for each man to build a satisfying life upon.

@Phosphorous,

Phosphorous;56411 wrote:

I'm hard pressed to believe there's actually something concrete called evil at all.

There are indeed very evil people out there, rapists, murders, child molesters, G. Bush, etc.

@Poseidon,

The notion of "evil" is a value driven concept. Man is a meaning seeking and value driven creature. Even more appalling than the moral evil humans inflict on one another is the notion that there is no such thing as evil, that there are no real values, that all outcomes are equally desirable or acceptable. The absence of values is the ultimate form of evil and implies the loss of purpose, meaning and significance for human existence.

@prothero,

prothero;101177 wrote:

The notion of "evil" is a value driven concept. Man is a meaning seeking and value driven creature. Even more appalling than the moral evil humans inflict on one another is the notion that there is no such thing as evil, that there are no real values, that all outcomes are equally desirable or acceptable. The absence of values is the ultimate form of evil and implies the loss of purpose, meaning and significance for human existence.

I think that notion is important though, as, winhout it, we become blind and do not live our life as we desire.

@prothero,

prothero;101177 wrote:

The notion of "evil" is a value driven concept. Man is a meaning seeking and value driven creature. Even more appalling than the moral evil humans inflict on one another is the notion that there is no such thing as evil, that there are no real values, that all outcomes are equally desirable or acceptable. The absence of values is the ultimate form of evil and implies the loss of purpose, meaning and significance for human existence.

That is excellent.
So if evil did not exist, then that would be even worse than evil!

The absolute darkness is the absence of both light and darkness.
More bitter than bitterness is to lose one's sense of taste.
To see the ugliest girl is still prettier than to be blind.

awesome

Perhaps the question can evolve a bit to,
"Why do some people say they do not believe in good and evil?"

By the definition above, this would be the worst state of mind to be in.
A bland nothingness.

And I have to say, for all intents and purposes the author of a story is omnipotent over his story. Not necesarily in a cosmic sense, but from an analogical one as "God the author of our lives".

Of course I initially thought it bad that you all did not just agree with me, but by doing so, a greater truth has emerged.

Good : as in opposition to evil
Good : as encompassing the dynamic nature of evil to reveal an ever increasing goodness.

@Jose phil,

How about this: God has a split personality and the other guy, He refers to as Lucifer. Good and Evil are merged in the same Being and manifest themselves every now and then in the universe. The apparent split into two entirely separate entities is just God's way of rationalizing away His sin. He's his own psychoanalyst. Freud went to heaven, but when he got there, God was so lost in his delusions Freud decided to go see if he could drum up some business in Hell.

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;101919 wrote:

Perhaps the question can evolve a bit to,
"Why do some people say they do not believe in good and evil?"

By the definition above, this would be the worst state of mind to be in.
A bland nothingness.

I think saying that you dont believe in good or evil doesnt means you dont make moral jugments, but that you dont place large labels on things. For example in Brazil during the dictadorship communists were evil, and my history teacher told me they do go as far as telling children that communists eat children... I think that there is a difference between judging someone as an enemy and judging it as evil, because then you judge someone evil, you make many other unbased judgments about then.

Shostakovich;101953 wrote:

How about this: God has a split personality and the other guy, He refers to as Lucifer. Good and Evil are merged in the same Being and manifest themselves every now and then in the universe. The apparent split into two entirely separate entities is just God's way of rationalizing away His sin. He's his own psychoanalyst. Freud went to heaven, but when he got there, God was so lost in his delusions Freud decided to go see if he could drum up some business in Hell.

Its possible, but then again its possible that there are really two guys, its possible that there is just one of shifting mood and its possible that there isnt any =)

Philosophy Forum

The problem of why there is evil.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know