Good and Evil

[dahrling]

Hello everyone

Recently I was watching Star Wars Part III (please keep reading) and one particular conversation bothered me.

Here is a transcript:

- Chancellor: The Jedi Council want control of the republic.
- Anakin: I don't think...
- Chancellor: Anakin, search your feelings. You know, don't you?
- Anakin: I know they don't trust you
- Chancellor: Or the republic, or democracy for that matter.
- Anakin: I have to admit, my trust in them has been shaken.
- Chancellor: Why? They asked you to do something that made you feel dishonest, didn't they? They asked for you to spy on me, didn't they?
- Anakin: I don't know what to say...
- Chancellor: Remember back to your early teachings. All who gain power are too afraid to lose it. Even the Jedi.
- Anakin: The Jedi use their power for good.
- Chancellor: Good is a point of view, Anakin. The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power.
- Anakin: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength, they think inwards only about themselves.
- Chancellor: And the Jedi don't?
- Anakin: The Jedi are selfless, they only care about others.

Now, the question here is: are good and evil truly points of view?

In this particular movie for example, we're told that the "good" ones are the Jedi, because they're selfless, and even though they do desire control this is only because they want peace. The "bad" ones are the ones who do not agree with their current political system. I don't know what happens in the following movies (I have not watched them yet) but I know in the end the "Jedi code" is supposedly amended to make things more "grey".

Is there anyway to define good and evil in an universal sense - a definition that everyone, from every culture, can agree on?

And is being "selfless" truly a good thing - what makes it so? It may be "good" for others, but is it good for you? And is being selfish then "evil"? Putting your own desires and necessities first? Is there a limit to it? A line?

Also, take for example someone who is a Muslim and defends his/her book of teaching by saying that the evils it presents (like how a little girl was wed to Muhammad when she was only 6 years old, and how their marriage was consummated when she 9) were considered "correct" or "acceptable" at the time they happened. How does one respond to this? How can we argue against this if good and evil aren't universal truths, if they are only based on culture?

[Jericho]

First of all, you gain ten points from me for liking Star Wars.

As for the question, I believe that good/evil is actually a point of view. Look at our society compared to the Viking society (just one example). For us, it is against the law to kill in any way, for it is deemed unethical. Back then it was considered a great honor to kill others in battle, and even viewed as honorable to die in battle. Not only that, but many were sacrificed for their gods, and in some cases, the men sacrificed had volunteered to die...for glory. That may not be the best example, but it isn't the only one.

Morals vary depending on the culture, that much will always be true. At the end of the day, you can always argue that people who do evil things don't see themselves as evil. And even then, who am I to define those acts as evil to begin with? Quite a conundrum.

[dahrling]

First of all, you gain ten points from me for liking Star Wars.

As for the question, I believe that good/evil is actually a point of view.  Look at our society compared to the Viking society (just one example).  For us, it is against the law to kill in any way, for it is deemed unethical.  Back then it was considered a great honor to kill others in battle, and even viewed as honorable to die in battle.  Not only that, but many were sacrificed for their gods, and in some cases, the men sacrificed had volunteered to die...for glory.  That may not be the best example, but it isn't the only one.

Morals vary depending on the culture, that much will always be true.  At the end of the day, you can always argue that people who do evil things don't see themselves as evil.  And even then, who am I to define those acts as evil to begin with?  Quite a conundrum.

Hah, thank you (: I actually find it to be a very interesting film series. It touches on many issues we can find in abundance in our society. Same goes for Lord of the Rings, for example, even though I find it to be less morally ambiguous. 

OK, so let's say then that good and evil hail from a cultural point of view (as well as a personal one). Were religions invented as a way to keep order, then? And if so, would the Vikings in this example die in battle if they didn't believe in gods? What keeps an atheist from doing whatever he or she thinks? I would say ethics and our own conscience. As well as the law. But the law are made by men and they can change. Can ethics change?

[Jericho]

Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, huh? Twenty points.

I completely agree that the main point for the creation of religion was for order. Other reasons range from people wanting to believe in an afterlife to people coming up with supernatural explanations to the unknown. In terms of the Vikings, they would still have died in battle like regular people. However, I do not think they would have sought death and war so eagerly if they didn't see dying as glorious and honorable (since they believed in Valhalla).

I agree with your opinion on what keeps atheists from doing whatever they want. That isn't to say that none do, since everyone is capable of doing what they want, no matter their religion. But yes, most people don't do things that they view as bad, which is mainly due to law and what is accepted in society.

Ethics can be changed, sure. Though it would take quite some time for them to be changed on a large scale. Take for instance, the fact that we live in a world where, in most places, it is wrong to kill. Sure, there could come a time where it is socially acceptable to kill (though unlikely). But that change would take a very long time to take affect in everyone's minds.

[robvalue]

I think good and evil are only judgements that humans make about things. Nothing and no one is intrinsically good or evil. We decide what we think is good and evil on an individual basis.

As humans we seem to have a general trend to label certain things evil such as random acts of murder, and as civilisation develops rape, assault and theft too. These seem to be pretty universal.

But I'm sure there have been many people who most would consider evil who genuinely thought they were being "good", or at least justified.

[Edwardo Piet]

Good is about kindness and alleviating suffering. Evil is about harmful sadism, cruelty and causing needless suffering.

Very different. Can't really torture someone to death and admit you are doing it for purely sadistic reasons and then redefine that to mean good. If that's a point of view you must be too illiterate to read the dictionary definitions. The words good and evil actually have meanings that in the real world relate to the values and well being of people.

[robvalue]

I agree that they are the only definitions that seem to make sense. I don't much care about any other definitions.

[Edwardo Piet]

In the context of morality the definitions are pretty clear.

[AdamLOV]

Good is about kindness and alleviating suffering. Evil is about harmful sadism, cruelty and causing needless suffering.

Very different. Can't really torture someone to death and admit you are doing it for purely sadistic reasons and then redefine that to mean good. If that's a point of view you must be too illiterate to read the dictionary definitions. The words good and evil actually have meanings that in the real world relate to the values and well being of people.

If morality pertains to the values and well being of people, then should it not pertain to every other living being as well? In fact, one could make the case that formerly living things also enjoy the right to, at minimum, be left alone . For example, one could argue that the organic beings who decomposition formed fossil fuels have the right not to be burned by combustion motors.

Another point: sadism and torture have been sources of enjoyment for a small but significant minority of people since time immemorial. Therefore to be restricted from causing pain and suffering is, for such deviant people, a source of pain and suffering How could one solve such a conundrum? Would morality then be what suits the interests of the majority of living beings? But then morality would have a very unhuman, perhaps even antihuman flavour. A morality restricted to reducing the pain and suffering of the majority of humans only would, on the other hand, discriminate against and exclude other life forms. So the question of morality's conceptual clarity is one open for debate, I should think.

[dahrling]

Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, huh?  Twenty points.

I completely agree that the main point for the creation of religion was for order.  Other reasons range from people wanting to believe in an afterlife to people coming up with supernatural explanations to the unknown.  In terms of the Vikings, they would still have died in battle like regular people.  However, I do not think they would have sought death and war so eagerly if they didn't see dying as glorious and honorable (since they believed in Valhalla).

I agree with your opinion on what keeps atheists from doing whatever they want.  That isn't to say that none do, since everyone is capable of doing what they want, no matter their religion.  But yes, most people don't do things that they view as bad, which is mainly due to law and what is accepted in society.

Ethics can be changed, sure.  Though it would take quite some time for them to be changed on a large scale.  Take for instance, the fact that we live in a world where, in most places, it is wrong to kill.  Sure, there could come a time where it is socially acceptable to kill (though unlikely).  But that change would take a very long time to take affect in everyone's minds.

Right, but how would that change come about? For example, in the case of WWII and the Holocaust - death was seen as an acceptable "solution" for Jews. As a result, millions died. Of course, using our conscience we know this is wrong. It doesn't have to be explained. You just have to realize that there is no real logic behind it. It was just hate. I don't think there is ever truly any logic behind killing, except in the case of self-defense. But otherwise I personally cannot see any other time death can be considered to be fair or good. 

I think good and evil are only judgements that humans make about things. Nothing and no one is intrinsically good or evil. We decide what we think is good and evil on an individual basis.

As humans we seem to have a general trend to label certain things evil such as random acts of murder, and as civilisation develops rape, assault and theft too. These seem to be pretty universal. 

But I'm sure there have been many people who most would consider evil who genuinely thought they were being "good", or at least justified.

May I offer some examples? When the Catholic church tortured heretics. When Muslims stone people for "sinning". When Jews used to stone them for the same reason. When the people overthrew the French government during the French revolution and killed the nobility. They all thought they were doing the right thing. But they weren't. Why? I think it always comes down to violence. And what is violence?

"Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or , threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" 


I believe all evil roots from violence and ignorance. With education I believe we can, for the most part, eradicate it. Of course, there are always those who are gravely mentally ill and who need medical help to overcome their desire for violence. But for most of the population, all it takes is education. We have evidence of this. Countries that invest heavily in education, and that tend to be secular, are the ones with the highest human development levels. The least violence. The longest and happiness lives. 

Good is about kindness and alleviating suffering. Evil is about harmful sadism, cruelty and causing needless suffering.

Very different. Can't really torture someone to death and admit you are doing it for purely sadistic reasons and then redefine that to mean good. If that's a point of view you must be too illiterate to read the dictionary definitions. The words good and evil actually have meanings that in the real world relate to the values and well being of people.

I agree, which is why I stopped believing in god. I could not believe in a god who claims to be good but who is violent. If he is love, and if he is good, than how can he hate? How can he be violent? It is just complete antagony.


If you are very sick you may not understand what you're doing (same thing if you're far too ignorant). Today we still have "honor killings" in Muslim countries. They believe they're doing the right thing. But we know they're not because their god doesn't exist. They have faith in him, even though it isn't logical. And in many Christian countries we have other types of violence. But the most secular countries tend to be where violence is lowest. But how can we convince people there is no god? We can't. Just like we can't convince them unicorns don't live on the moon. How do we know they don't? Because we know unicorns are manmade myths. There is no religion based on unicorns. There could have been. Anyone can make something up and tell it as though it is true.  When people realize their religion is based on mythology with no real logic behind it, then they will finally wake up. Because religion is based on faith. And faith is a belief held with no proof. We may not yet be able to completely disprove their beliefs, but we might be able to shake up the foundations of their creed so that they can analyze what they hold sacred and reach their own conclusions using their conscience.