[Serious] Good vs Evil

[tackattack]

---

If I had to define good and evil in terms of good people or bad people I'd say
good = a degree of empathy that spurs selflessness
evil = a degree of selfishness that comes from a lack of empathy

and if you want me to factor in my religious perspective, since this thread is in that forum:

natural evil= The axiomatic degree to which people act against God's will
natural good= The axiomatic characteristic of God's empathetic and compassionate nature towards positive outcomes for the most people

moral good = the ethical correctness of God's revealed will
moral evil = sin (going against God's will)

what do you use to define the types of good and evil?

I've never seen a biblical examples subdivided like this. There was man's good and God's version as well as evil but it seems you have fond deeper meaning?

just asking not trying to start a debate..

What or why does empathy have anything to do with Good or evil? I can perform evil acts with or without consideration to anyone or anything, or i can do acts of evil out of empathy according to this defination..

for example I know lying is wrong. if my wife asks do I look fat, the answer is always no even if she is pouring out of a dress like an over filled muffin pan. One I did this out of empathy, but doing so is a lie which is a sin that I am now defending as good which literally is a form of evil.

So then how oes emotion play into good and evil and is there some sort of example you had in mind?

---

I see morality as a tiered system, as I've stated elsewhere.
The most personal and smallest moral realm is subjective morality "I feel xxx is bad" - bad for you but not necessarily for everyone else
The next tier with increased moral realm to include the prior is community morality "We feel xxx is bad" - bad for the society of the time, but times change
The third tier with increased moral realm to include the previous 2 is objective morality "God feels xxx is bad" - bad with relation to a standard from outside the universe and revealed

I wasn't referring to moral values of acts as your are but a evaluative assessment of a person, place or thing. If you want to talk good and evil actions I probably have an entirely different definition for that.

Sure I can give you an example. America is good. America can act evil. America can act good. Since it is not in relation to a person I believe The axiomatic degree to which people act against God's will, as a whole, in America is in line with God's will and therefore good.
Trump is evil. Trump can act good. Trump can act evil. I don't believe trump exhibits a degree of empathy that spurs selflessness so I define him as evil. I also believe that a lot of what he has done is sinful (if I were to judge with my limited perspective) and I would surmise he is most likely morally evil as well.

Hope that clears it up
-Dave

---

If I had to define good and evil in terms of good people or bad people I'd say
good = a degree of empathy that spurs selflessness
evil = a degree of selfishness that comes from a lack of empathy

and if you want me to factor in my religious perspective, since this thread is in that forum:

natural evil= The axiomatic degree to which people act against God's will
natural good= The axiomatic characteristic of God's empathetic and compassionate nature towards positive outcomes for the most people

moral good = the ethical correctness of God's revealed will
moral evil = sin (going against God's will)

The problem with selflessness is that it can easily become evil against oneself.  Why not think of oneself as if one were another person?  We certainly can do more good for ourselves than most anyone else.

I consider "natural evils" to be such things as spontaneous abortions, earthquakes, diseases, and so on, for which no one is to blame unless God exists.  If God exists, he has to answer for natural evils.

From an atheistic perspective, "sin" so defined doesn't exist without a God existing, though evil still does.  Good and evil are defined in terms of human interests.

---

Yet despite the fact we have the most ability individually to affect our own happiness and well being, many people still will treat their dogs better than themselves. I believe that is because empathy is a necessarily outward tool and inwardly whatever empathy we have for self is overrun by self-preservation and other instinctual reflexes. Evilness has intent though, and up until it's acted upon, a degree of empathy would be a good metre stick for outward actions related to other people and valued as such. If we were one man on an island in all of humanity, I don't believe morality would be much of a thing as we'd have little outside reference or need for empathy and would resort to good is what's best for me/not as good as what's best is evil. I understand the atheistic caveat regarding sin. I wasn't asked for a dictionary defintion, because that would be a short thread, I just gave my perspective for what it's worth. I wouldn't claim that all atheists believe evil exists. That's more of a moral realist/relativist/nihilist stance, since, as you pointed out, it would have nothing to do with God.