I won't say anything new but still here are my two cents:
Firstly I think that comcepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' are purely relativistic. I'm surprised why it's so hard to comprehend for some.
But not only these concepts are relativistic, they are heavily dependant upon the wording. This is the issue that makes things difficult in more complex discussions. For example consider a lion and a gazelle. "Getting proper nutrition" sounds fairly good for both. But going into further details and saying "having a successfull hunt" starts to sound worse for the gazelle while it's still good for the lion.
The other important thing is that the 'goodness' of good and 'badness' of evil are dependant upon the consequences for the individual.
With human society it gets much more complex. The society if taken as a whole has its own 'goods' and 'evils' and they obviously do not always coincide with those of the individuals. These 'social' virtues and evils are defined by the most basic needs and habits which most of the individuals agree on. It's understandable that most people would prefer to be safe from sudden acts of murder, or violence, or theft or such. Thus the 'commandments' and taboos are born. The heavier the concequences the more serious the taboo is. But it's not always the case. But even the most general taboos are not universal. Competing individuals and groups are always looking for the ways to get around them. For example it's fairly clear from history that there are many ways to get around the 'do not kill' taboo (and I'm not speaking of capital punishment here).
Firstly I think that comcepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' are purely relativistic. I'm surprised why it's so hard to comprehend for some.
But not only these concepts are relativistic, they are heavily dependant upon the wording. This is the issue that makes things difficult in more complex discussions. For example consider a lion and a gazelle. "Getting proper nutrition" sounds fairly good for both. But going into further details and saying "having a successfull hunt" starts to sound worse for the gazelle while it's still good for the lion.
The other important thing is that the 'goodness' of good and 'badness' of evil are dependant upon the consequences for the individual.
With human society it gets much more complex. The society if taken as a whole has its own 'goods' and 'evils' and they obviously do not always coincide with those of the individuals. These 'social' virtues and evils are defined by the most basic needs and habits which most of the individuals agree on. It's understandable that most people would prefer to be safe from sudden acts of murder, or violence, or theft or such. Thus the 'commandments' and taboos are born. The heavier the concequences the more serious the taboo is. But it's not always the case. But even the most general taboos are not universal. Competing individuals and groups are always looking for the ways to get around them. For example it's fairly clear from history that there are many ways to get around the 'do not kill' taboo (and I'm not speaking of capital punishment here).
