[Serious] The Good

[brewer]

Good is not necessarily the opposite of evil. If you're going to compare/contrast good and evil, you'll need definitions.

Good does not always need intent/motivations/morals, evil more often does. 

The premise that loss of function is evil is just silly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not having children is "evil" if evil is the privation of good, and good is a purpose descriptor, lol. 

[brewer]

Not having children is "evil" if evil is the privation of good, and good is a purpose descriptor, lol. 

I'm not sure having children after they turn 30 is evil, but it definitely ain't good.

[LastPoet]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

By good-fors, antibiotics are good-for us and mass murder is good-for us.  There's a point at which one has to wonder whether anything actually is in the privation category of teleological not-good in the first place.

There's no "evil" thing entirely devoid of purpose or use. I suppose some things are not as good-for as others..but at that point we're talking about better or more useful, not good and evil as described through purpose.

[downbeatplumb]

(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

Hey man its your delusion, you tell us what "god" is.

[LadyForCamus]

Moderator Notice
Let’s all keep in mind that this is a “serious” thread. No insults, please.

[Acrobat]

Moderator Notice
Let’s all keep in mind that this is a “serious” thread. No insults, please.

Ah so that’s what serious means in the thread title.

[Fake Messiah]

[Yonadav]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned Isaiah 45:7 yet. In it, G-d says that He creates evil.

The Jewish understanding of evil is a little bit different. And there are different types of evil. And sometimes people do evil for good reasons. When they go too far with their evil, then they are just plain evil-- example, Hitler. And when they do just the right amount of evil, then they are saviors-- example, Cyrus who is actually referred to as a moshiach in the OT.

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.

Every person has a capacity for evil that is equal to their capacity for good. They have a capacity for good that is equal to their capacity for evil. So Hitler could have been one of the greatest people in world history, had he chosen the better part of his nature. We have the yetzer hara (dark side) and the yetzer hatov (our better nature). There is a story of some students of a great Rabbi saying that their Rabbi had no yetzer hara. Another Rabbi objected, saying that they were insulting their Rabbi. To say that someone has no yetzer hara is to say that they are a zero, a doormat. Our dark side motivates us to do great things. Our better nature moderates the ambition of the dark side.