[Serious] The Good

[Stoneheart]

Most acts of man are both good and evil. There is a little bit of evil in pretty much everything that is 'good', and there is a little bit of good in everything that is 'bad'. In the earthly realm, things aren't entirely good or entirely bad. There is a correct measure for everything. The correct measure is not necessarily a constant.

One persons good is another persons evil. Hitler did not think that he was evil.
Some people have been taught "Alexander the terrible" was great.
　
With a definition of good and evil then measurement would be possible. Perhaps if there was only "good" then everyone would be exactly the same, rather than the thoughts and deeds of different degrees of good and evil which would add up to a unique person.
So maybe variety would be impossible without having evil.
　
Evil could also create the potential for a greater good, more than if there was only good.
Like having starving people creates the potential for someone to do something about it.

[arewethereyet]

It all depends on the point of view really, antibiotics might be good for us, but its bacterial mass murder.

So good for humans, avoid doing harm to your own species. It's easier said than done.

---

And by harm I mean violence.

This is a good point. 

When we say "good," I suspect we're always saying "good for something or someone." 

Good for humans might well be bad for bacteria. Although I think lately we're finding out that things are a bit more interwoven than we thought. Bad for bee colonies turns out to be bad for humans, too.

---

It might get eaten by a squirrel and never become a tree at all.

That's obvious. 

This would prevent the acorn from reaching its full potential.

Perhaps the acorn has more than one 'final purpose'...like potentially rooting and growing into a tree that will produce more acorns as well as to be a food source for squirrels.  

There isn't just one purpose for many things in nature.

[Belacqua]

Perhaps the acorn has more than one 'final purpose'...like potentially rooting and growing into a tree that will produce more acorns as well as to be a food source for squirrels.  

There isn't just one purpose for many things in nature.

Yes, that's right. 

Aristotelians often point out that water, for example, has many final causes: to float boats, to hydrate your body, to make noodles edible, etc. 

Acorns also feed squirrels.

[The Grand Nudger]

I suspect that the desire to follow a trail to it's terminus where the doe sits, trembling, waiting for the end, is an artifact of human nature rather the facts of the universe at large.

: shrugs :

[brewer]

Sounds like the "final cause" is probably unknowable. I'm not sure that gets us anywhere when discussing good and evil.

[Belacqua]

Sounds like the "final cause" is probably unknowable. 

First we'd have to specify which final cause we were working on. A human's final cause is not the same as a candy bar's. 

Second, while it's true that a human's final cause might be to feed a lion, that's a good for the lion and not the person. 

A final cause which is good for the person would be the actualization of as much of that person's potential as possible. To be the thing that his potential, as a baby, was pointed at. 

If we believe that there is something unique to humans, then we might be able to say that the actualization of this potential is a uniquely human good. 

So we have two things to work on, I guess: 1) what goal or condition most actualizes human potential? and 2) What if anything is specific to humans, such that this is the thing which human potentiality points toward?

[Fake Messiah]

Evil could also create the potential for a greater good, more than if there was only good.
Like having starving people creates the potential for someone to do something about it.

Wow. So God sends a hurricane, kills your child so that he can make an opportunity for some schmuck in some other country to choose to send you money or not - you know as a test. He used your child as a prop for a test to see if you can enter Heaven.
I need a barf bag.

[Stoneheart]

Evil could also create the potential for a greater good, more than if there was only good.
Like having starving people creates the potential for someone to do something about it.

Wow. So God sends a hurricane, kills your child so that he can make an opportunity for some schmuck in some other country to choose to send you money or not - you know as a test. He used your child as a prop for a test to see if you can enter Heaven.
I need a barf bag.

Good for you?
 


Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. To Us must ye return. 21:35

He is the irresistible, watching from above over His worshippers, and He sets guardians over you. At length, when death approaches one of you, Our angels take his soul, and they never fail in their duty. 6:61

[Fake Messiah]

Wow. So God sends a hurricane, kills your child so that he can make an opportunity for some schmuck in some other country to choose to send you money or not - you know as a test. He used your child as a prop for a test to see if you can enter Heaven.
I need a barf bag.

Good for you?
 


Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. To Us must ye return. 21:35

He is the irresistible, watching from above over His worshippers, and He sets guardians over you. At length, when death approaches one of you, Our angels take his soul, and they never fail in their duty. 6:61

God is like Zack from "She's All That" but worse

[WinterHold]

(This conversation started in the Shoutbox, but I thought it deserved a bigger scope.)

There are different concepts of what the Good is. Some people hold that Good and Evil are both real. Others say that only Good is real and Evil is its privation. 

This may vary even within a religion. I think it would be interesting to look at and compare different ideas, especially in reference to different thinkers. For example, if Avicenna and Averroes differ. Or different views within Christianity. 

There are ancient concepts which I'm not very clear on -- for example, the idea that being is in some way identical with the good. 

I'm looking forward to different views. 

For starters, here's a link I gave in the Shoutbox to the Catholic Encyclopedia's article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm

A very interesting idea to discuss if not mostly crucial to one's faith; because it touches the respect one is holding for the deity they choose.

I personally side with the concept that evil and good are two separate entities; with one God created them both.
The concept is not taken from any scholar or school of thought; rather directly from Islam's source book; as I was reading it I found out a number of verses that pointed to this concept in explicit language making this thought an Islamic essential concept.

If we came to why I chose to believe in this image of God; we'll come back to respect: meaning is "how can I respect a God only capable and only knows good? if so; then he is missing and lacking something".

Otherwise I believe that as a creator of all; he created both good and evil; but chose good over evil. That's why "good" is attractive to us; not because "good" has its own unique power or evil have its own unique power.
We just see "good" as "pure" because God chose it. If God chose evil; evil would've been the attractive concept for us.

After all; we can see this in nature. Some animals live on causing misery to humans; to us it is misery; to them it is joy and life.

God made our scope prefer what is known as "good". If he wanted; he would've made us enjoy "evil" at birth; and become evil by birth.

The above is my personal theory and personal belief based on the Quran alone.