good versus evil

[exastra]

There is no good or bad, right or wrong. Only harmless and harmful.
We tend to (erroneously) judge as evil that which we consider to be hostile against us, if not to us. The less threatened we feel (but not necessarily are) by some thing, the less evil it seems (but not necessarily is no threat or harm)... the less inclined we are to regard it as evil. Because it is no longer interpreted as harmful, and so ceases to be harmful.
With increased tolerances of difference, perhaps we may even become beyond terms of good and evil.
However, good and evil exist inconsiderate of us; whether we identify and recognize them or not.
True evil is malicious intent-- will to harm; while true good is benevolent intent.
No one is or can be purely good or purely evil. The choice between being good or evil is as being alive or dead. We have the capacity for degrees of both. But we cannot equally and simultaneously exist as one and the other. There is necessarily a varied ratio; predominately one or the other (by choice and/ or disposition).
Evil is equated with darkness because it conceals, is of the unknown or unseen. Good is equated with light because it reveals, is of the known or seen. But the light can also conceal truth, and the dark can also reveal truth. A majority of good distracts from a minority of evil; as a majority of evil distracts from a minority of good. If the light is most obvious, then the evil is less noticable; if the dark is most obvious, then the good is less noticable. But like yin and yang, the light and dark... the good and evil exist within each other and because of each other; defining each other in symbiosis. Therefore, they are not always easy to recognize, until the critical moment of revelation. One must be willing to look and see deeply within each for their own truths; whether it be a truth of the light, of the dark, or of your self.
They exist as such in both literal and figurative terms. Darkness is an aspect of evil, but not the evil itself. Light is an aspect of good, but not the good itself.
Jesus claimed to be the light and the way. Lucifer and Prometheus were punished for bringing divine light to humanity. The Illuminati are so named because they are illuminated by knowledge. Carl Jung has labeled the hidden facets of the psyche "shadow". These are not merely figures of speech. Light is awareness; dark is a lack of or disregard for awareness (ignorance).
Such awareness is based on knowledge of our selves, and the absence is in choosing to act against the Golden Rule (karma).
Why is Lucifer considered evil? Negative propoganda campaign which deliberately misunderstands his role. Lucifer Morningstar-- a.k.a. Bringer of Light-- illuminates hidden truths of our soul by tempting us to question the unknown, and to explore our darker side to reveal the light. Because without evil, there is no good. But the Church seeks to discredit, devalue and defame him and his purpose, by labeling him the adversary and the deceiver. And the Church distorts reality into a simplistic --and therefore falacious-- duality of black and white, ignoring the grey of truth... the truth of grey. Alas, missing the vital component of context. Lucifer, like God, is merely metaphor.
The means utilized may be evil, but the end is good. Whether his intentions are malevolent or benevolent, Lucifer wishes to bring us divine light. If he brings us that light directly or indirectly, it is still brought to us. God and we should be more grateful that Lucifer tells us the truth we may not want to hear, but certainly need to hear... and are eventually made better for it as we learn from our mistakes.
Lucifer's (and Prometheus's) only "crime" was a desire to choose, and to bring that power of choice to humanity. The conflict between God and Lucifer is the same one within each of us:
balancing good with evil.
Someone is malicious because he/ she acts ignorantly or in spite of knowing better.
Remember that a person may DO good or evil, but not necessarily BE it.
One may engage a fascination with elements of the light or the dark, without succumbing fully to either; as a goth does with the macabre without necessarily becoming evil, or as a Christian might with his religion without necessarily becoming good.
Everything is variations of energy... including thought. Therefore, good and evil are natural independent forces, manifested through consciousness (which extends throughout time and space; corporeal and non-corporeal realms).
Because good is defined in relation to evil, the existence of one automatically implies the other.

www.geocities.com/exastra/paradox.htm

[I, Brian]

I'll take you up with an analysis.

Originally Posted by exastra

There is no good or bad, right or wrong. Only harmless and harmful.
We tend to (erroneously) judge as evil that which we consider to be hostile against us, if not to us. The less threatened we feel (but not necessarily are) by some thing, the less evil it seems (but not necessarily is no threat or harm)... the less inclined we are to regard it as evil. Because it is no longer interpreted as harmful, and so ceases to be harmful.
With increased tolerances of difference, perhaps we may even become beyond terms of good and evil.

Agreed with you so far - "good" and "evil" as personal and cultural perceptions.

[quote=exastra]
However, good and evil exist inconsiderate of us; whether we identify and recognize them or not.
[/quote[
...but then there seems like an implication that these are not indeed within concepts, but external, and have independent existence beyond the personal and cultural.

Originally Posted by exastra

True evil is malicious intent-- will to harm; while true good is benevolent intent.

This is too simplistic. There's an age-old excuse - both personal and cultural - that murder is can be justified. Will to harm doesn;t have to be malicious - it can be benevolent.

For example, a person who kills prostitutes because their loving God told them to do it is acting out of a form of benevolent action, yes?

The people of Massada killed their own children because they considered it a lesser evil than to be delivered to the Romans?

Also note psychological harm - a woman who lived round the corner from me had all her children taken from her by the social services. Without trying to invite specific debate on this topic within this thread, that would still rank as an attempt to procede with benevolent action, yes? After all, it was the welfare of the children being decided for - even though it would of course hurt the mother, and even the children?

Originally Posted by exastra

No one is or can be purely good or purely evil. The choice between being good or evil is as being alive or dead. We have the capacity for degrees of both. But we cannot equally and simultaneously exist as one and the other. There is necessarily a varied ratio; predominately one or the other (by choice and/ or disposition).

The trouble here is that your argument has gone beyond the definitions it has already set itself. In what way are we ordinarily malicious and harmful to others (ie, "evil")? If we are not then we are not evil, therefore this point is very much an unsubstantiated point.

(By the way - as you've posted the article here, I'm taking it to mean that it's intended for discussion - even debate - which is the level I'm respectfully addressing it within. )

Originally Posted by exastra

Evil is equated with darkness because it conceals, is of the unknown or unseen. Good is equated with light because it reveals, is of the known or seen.

Now I'd argue that you're far too extending the use of the terms you've earlier tried to define. the unknown is feared for being unknown, not for being evil. You seem to have amalgamated "evil" and "fear" here.

EDIT - certainly in cultural terms there is an association, but I originally thought you wer arguing for a rational connection of "fear" as "evil".

Originally Posted by exastra

But the light can also conceal truth, and the dark can also reveal truth. A majority of good distracts from a minority of evil; as a majority of evil distracts from a minority of good. If the light is most obvious, then the evil is less noticable; if the dark is most obvious, then the good is less noticable. But like yin and yang, the light and dark... the good and evil exist within each other and because of each other; defining each other in symbiosis. Therefore, they are not always easy to recognize, until the critical moment of revelation. One must be willing to look and see deeply within each for their own truths; whether it be a truth of the light, of the dark, or of your self.

The idea of duality is a concept I fear is very much misrepresented - see end comments.

Originally Posted by exastra

They exist as such in both literal and figurative terms. Darkness is an aspect of evil, but not the evil itself. Light is an aspect of good, but not the good itself.

Darkness an aspect of evil? That seems too forced - associated with, rather than aspect. The former implies a necessary and justified correlation, while the latter suggests personal and cultural factors - the opening argument. (Or I am making Wittgenstein proud here by performing a critique of language first??)

Originally Posted by exastra

Jesus claimed to be the light and the way. Lucifer and Prometheus were punished for bringing divine light to humanity.

Prometheus is interesting - but I'm curious of how you'd support that assertion of Lucifer. What references are you using there?

Originally Posted by exastra

Such awareness is based on knowledge of our selves, and the absence is in choosing to act against the Golden Rule (karma).

Heh, is karma really associated with "The Golden Rule"? Perhaps that's something specific for one of Vajradhara's threads.

Originally Posted by exastra

Why is Lucifer considered evil? Negative propoganda campaign which deliberately misunderstands his role. Lucifer Morningstar-- a.k.a. Bringer of Light-- illuminates hidden truths of our soul by tempting us to question the unknown, and to explore our darker side to reveal the light.

It's an interesting perception - but I suspect it is highly divorced from the Biblical root, which I do not believe relates to Lucifer as bringing "light" to anything. I'd need to research the cultural context of the root word for that.

Originally Posted by exastra

Because without evil, there is no good.

Back to the issue of duality.

Originally Posted by exastra

But the Church seeks to discredit, devalue and defame him and his purpose, by labeling him the adversary and the deceiver.

That is actually the theological position of the concept in the Old and New Testament's separately - HaShaTan - the adversary of the Old Testament, who became grow in adversity to become the deceiver of the New.

Originally Posted by exastra

And the Church distorts reality into a simplistic --and therefore falacious-- duality of black and white, ignoring the grey of truth... the truth of grey.

I realise that you're arguing for the grey, but I've read most of the prior section of this article to imply the opposite - you yourself have defined and dealt with "good" and "evil" as specific and separate - distinct - realities.

Originally Posted by exastra

Alas, missing the vital component of context. Lucifer, like God, is merely metaphor.

Without the Church that is certainly true. But I suspect that the definitions are being defined outside of their original usage and being reapplied, which is great as an exploratory exercise - but there's the danger of criticising others for not using your own personal interpretation.

Originally Posted by exastra

The means utilized may be evil, but the end is good. Whether his intentions are malevolent or benevolent, Lucifer wishes to bring us divine light. If he brings us that light directly or indirectly, it is still brought to us. God and we should be more grateful that Lucifer tells us the truth we may not want to hear, but certainly need to hear... and are eventually made better for it as we learn from our mistakes.

This definitely sounds extra-Biblical.

It also mixes up the imagery - Satan has only once been associated with the bringing forth of knowledge, and that's the Garden of Eden account. Even still, open to much varied interpretation.

Originally Posted by exastra

Everything is variations of energy... including thought. Therefore, good and evil are natural independent forces, manifested through consciousness (which extends throughout time and space; corporeal and non-corporeal realms).

Which argues against your original statements (as I read them) that "good" and "evil" are essentially nothing more than personal and cultural constructs.

Originally Posted by exastra

Because good is defined in relation to evil, the existence of one automatically implies the other.

I suspect the reasoning on that camp is too simplistic as well.

Light is an active energy, darkness is simply the passive absence of energy. Although in linguistic terms we can therefore consider that they therefore represent an opposite, the usual application of this usually ignores the fact that darkness is passive.

As for Yin and Yang - I do not see it as illustrative of two adversial elements. In fact, my personal preference is to regard the entire yin-yang symbolism not as a two-dimensional dynamic opposition, as much as a one-sided dynamic that in three dimensions would be more equivalent to a spiral - or helix. (Anybody following me there?).

Hm...okay, let's see how that goes for discussion.

[Thomas]

I think the error here is in confusing an absolute with a relative expression.

That something can be 'a lesser evil' or a 'greater good' is a matter of degree, it does not alter the fact of 'good' or 'evil' as such. If we look at the manifestation, it is always subject to limitation and contingency, but the effect nevertheless points to the cause, and the cause to a source.

In metaphysical terms the Good corresponds to Reality and Truth, all three being expression of the Divine Will in that what God wills is Real (God causes it to be), is True (it is what God wills it to be) and is Good (because God wills it).

As God does not will evil, it is not the compliment of good, but the absence of it.

Good subsists in God. Evil subsists in nothing.

There is a Buddhist story:

A young monk is captured by a demon. To escape, he is given three choices, to make love to a woman, to eat a goat, or to drink alcohol.

The monk thinks, "I have taken a vow of chastity, so I cannot lie with the woman. I have sworn to protect all life, so I cannot harm the goat. I have sworn not to touch alcohol, but of the three, this is surely the lesser evil, no great harm can come of it." So he elects to drink the alcohol.

The liquor is strong, and the monk unused to strong drink. He quickly becomes intoxicated, loses self control, slaughters the goat, and rapes the woman.

The moral? There is no such thing as a 'lesser evil' because we cannot forsee the consequences of our actions.

[I, Brian]

That's a good moral.

[exastra]

I, Brian... i will attempt to address your concerns...will to harm intends harm to another; the ends may be benevolent, but the means is always malicious.and murder CAN be justified: when it is probable that someone will cause harm to others and death is the only/ best means of deterring the threat.if you kill someone for their own good, you are not wishing them harm, since the death benefits them.taking a parent’s children away for the good of the children (or the parent) is not malicious, even if harm is coincidentally caused... so it is not a will to harm.yes, my argument went beyond the definition of good and evil initially established because the entire post is an elaboration on the concept. i’m not sure what your point was in stating that. you seem to be saying that it didn’t make sense because it didn’t make sense TO YOU.We are ordinarily evil when we wish harm to others.also, if we tend to fear the unknown, we are threatened by it. if we are threatened by it, we presume it to be harmful... therefore, an evil (or aspect of). we often approach the unknown warily, because we fear its potential to harm us.fear is an element of evil, because it motivates us to approach the unknown in an attack position; i.e.- wishing it harm.darkness, as something generally feared (as an unknown), becomes an aspect of evil in that fear of it. that’s not forced, it is a natural and logical conclusion extended from my proposed definitions.darkness is associated with evil in a subjective sense, but an aspect of in an objective sense.my ultimate point is that good and evil are both subjective and objective.i propose that it is objective, because we can recognize something as indicative of evil; such as gothic imagery which instills a sense of the demonic intuitively rather than sociologically. so it must be something independent of our subjective estimations. regarding the assertion of Lucifer playing the role of Prometheus, i do not recall specific sources. but he has been identified as Lucifer Morningstar... The Bringer of Light. insubstantiation in the bible is irrelevant; as the text is biased. Lucifer was “banished” from heaven to Earth for questioning and wanting to improve himself. one questions to discover truth, and challenges to become better. this inquisitive and challenging nature is demonstrated to us by Lucifer. Karma is essentially “what goes around comes around” or “you get what you give“. if you hurt me deliberately, then i am obliged to hurt you. or if you help me, i am obliged to help you. therefore, it is a representation of the Golden Rule, which is “do to others as you would expect done to you“. Good and Evil ARE distinct and separate entities (from us and from each other). however, we can only be a derivation or agent of them. therefore, diluted emanations.being neither pure good (white) nor evil (black), we thus exist in/ as the grey between extremes. everything consists of both aspects; because everything has potential for both good and bad applications/ interpretations.an evil can cause good, a good can cause evil. nothing is fully on or the other, only impressions of the idealized form.based on the understanding of the definitions as i’ve laid out here, the conclusions are logical extrapolations. there is no room for debate within these parameters. so, anyone who contests these conclusions must offer their own counter definitions with their own logical conclusions. but while i am satisfied that my own premise is valid and adequate, i recognize i may have overlooked some perspective, and am open to alternative interpretations. darkness defined the light just as much as the light defined the darkness. why do you presume that light is inherently and automatically active and dark is passive?darkness is not merely the absence of light, but the presence of dark. just as light is not merely the absence of dark.Yin and Yang-- whether 2 or 3 dimensional-- are still dualistic (but not necessarily adversarial) concepts of balance, regardless of your preference. could you please further explain your helix imagery? In response to Thomas: we can only be responsible for our actions, not their consequences. if our intent is to cause harm, then it is evil. if it is to cause no harm, it is good. note, however, that one may intend evil (harm) to achieve a good, and intend good to achieve an evil.yet there are indeed degrees along a spectrum between good and evil.a lesser evil would be what we determine/ intend to do towards committing less harm in relation to something we deem a greater harm.

[I, Brian]

Certainly my comments are from my own perception - though I am also trying to push the subject as a discussion issues.

The trouble is, we are talking about a complex set of constructs - which are in themselves would seem entirely cultural and personal. So trying to extract an "objective truth" of an external force of evil in the universe from this aspect is going to seem limited.

My personal simplification of the issue of one of "selfishness versus selflessness". Even then, as with your own argument, it falls apart under certain arguments. Personal intention is not equitable with overall action, in that well-meaning action may have horrible consequence.

The specific objection that always comes to mind is that of serial killers who murder because they believe God told them. Now, how can any of us judge that God is wrong and therefore such serial killers are also wrong? The only way to do this is to ignore their own personal morality and impose our own personal morality. Now how is that further complicated if these serial killers honestly think that they are doing something good and just?

So far as I can tell, your own personal definition of "evil" would exonerate such people of any wrong-doing.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Thomas narrates about the monk seized by a demon, compelled to make one of three choices, and choosing to drink:

The liquor is strong, and the monk unused to strong drink. He quickly becomes intoxicated, loses self control, slaughters the goat, and rapes the woman.

The moral? There is no such thing as a 'lesser evil' because we cannot forsee the consequences of our actions.

This story appears to teach that there is no way out of certain situations, and that we just have to be resigned to unforeseen forces of one action leading to another and another.

Is it a story to make us adopt an impassive attitude and eschew all sense of decision and responsibility?

For me, the monk makes the right choice and he will be acquitted of slaughtering the goat and raping the woman, should such events follow – i.e., if I were a rational God and not a robotized one.

The monk can foresee that he might lose control, then kill the goat and rape the woman, but he might not, and with greater probability. Since he is a monk, he should already have been conditioned to be normally well-behaved even when induced to a drunken stupor.

The idea that alcoholic intoxication leads to violence is not really so true. I would suspect that normally well-behaved people will not turn unruly when intoxicated; the trouble is with people not normally well-behaved. There are phases of alcoholic intoxication, though. But I think that the labs will prove my contention.

Evil is for me the choice of an emotional satisfaction or drive to the harm of another. Thus in many instances to satisfy the emotion of envy a person destroys the good name or obstructs the advancement of others. Another example, to satisfy the greed for more oil one country invades another. Still another, to satisfy libido one forces sex on another, whereas he should ask humbly and patiently; and be disposed to take no for an answer.

The kind of evil above is an essential evil in mankind. Then there is the evil that is proscribed by society, in accordance with what society thinks to be for the good of the whole social body; even though later in more enlightened times with changed circumstances the advantage imagined to be obtained should no longer exist. For example, one should marry first before having sex, that is the rule then and still binding in many societies.

Nowadays, however, with the science and technology of contraception practically failsafe for knowledgeable practitioners, sex without marriage is no longer evil in the estimation of the general Westernized public -- but just observe the demands of justice in regard to parties bound to the contracted duty of monogamic fidelity.

I would like to hear from Thomas or Brian more situations where a moral choice has to be made; I like to analyze the situations in my own conception of good and evil. Many such moral stories-situations are not really impossible to resolve on the basis of my theories.

Susma Rio Sep

[IlluSionS667]

What is good for one person sometimes is bad for another. What is good for an individual sometimes bad for the common welfare and vice versa. What is evil to on person may be normal or acceptable for another and vice versa.

Evil and good are both subjective. There is no objective good and evil. And both are oposites of the same essence.

[shannon]

Originally Posted by IlluSionS667

Evil and good are both subjective. There is no objective good and evil. And both are oposites of the same essence.

You think so? Or are you just saying that because it's simple and absolves you of any responsibility for anything absolute?

Can Malice and Compassion be compared to Evil and Good?
Are Malice and Compassion subjective?

No they are not. Malice is like Evil and Compassion is like Good. Each have very distinct and differing properties.

For instance, Malice is in part composed of a selfish desire usually which will knowingly cause pain to another. Compassion is in part composed of an unselfish action which will knowingly cause upliftment to another. What I'm trying to suggest is that these things ARE objective in a way, and not entirely subjective see?

The tired analogy of 'opposites being 2 ends of the same spectrum' only works if you are stuck in no more than 3 dimensions. It is an immature ideology of (as I read somewhere else here... ) New Age 101.

As we know. Dark is the absense of Light and Cold is the absense of Heat. These are scientifically verifiable facts. Dark and Cold have no existance in and of themselves but only as compared to degrees of Light and Heat.

The same is with Evil. It is the absense of Good. That is why the saying "All it takes for things to go to hell is for Good people to do nothing".

Good exists just like light and heat, and Evil does not, just like dark and cold. It is the absense of Good.

... my friend, just for a moment... imagine... 'what if there was a God who loved me, created me, and saw and knew everything about me?'

[I, Brian]

True, personal motivation is clear in the moral compass of the individual - but what about when different cultures meet and their moral compasses do not properly match, and the same action is seen is critically different ways?

[khut]

Is god good?

Not in the way most people think of as good.

if god is good why do we have death desease and famine, cant god fix it, or is he/she/it too lazy.

why would god send his own son to be beaten, tortured, and slowly killed in the most painfull way possible just so he/she/it can forgive us our sins.
Why not just forgive us our without going thru all that.
Thats just plain mean.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by khut

if god is good why do we have death desease and famine, cant god fix it, or is he/she/it too lazy.

In the days when it was seen as God's responsibility, Europeans simply threw their bodily wastes into the street. I figure I'm glad we took it as an issue of human responsibility to deal with it.

[mahogan]

I like the start of Plato's 'Republic', where they send their slaves off to get some papers before they start discussing democratic government.

Good and Bad are perhaps the most flexible terms we have. When one group claim they are right, whoever is arguing against them simply points out the effects that those actions have on another. Using the example of any war - both sides kill, both sides can quote atrocities by the other and both claim the other started it.

Even 'do unto others...' can come unstuck when you start to trade globally (should I wear cheap clothes made in a sweat shop), or animal food - I wouldn't like a sheep to cut my throat and hang me over a trough by my feet.

['ol perfessor]

The disease of modernism is that there are no absolutes. Therefore its ok if you think so and ok if I think so ad nauseum. Eventually the conflicts of the past and present distill those huge differences of opinion that say....outlaw slavery, instill democracy and freedom etc. THERE ARE ABSOLUTES. They are outlined in the 10 commandments. They are beautifully stated in our Declaration of Independence and further in our Constitution. Don't kid yourself or me. We strive for our world to get better. America, the Lord, Christianity,(a gift that is free, a God that asks for nothing except the recognition of the greatest gift to receive it.) There is one God! Should I continue? Or is the glint of recognition that the world is a better place when one knows that there is something beyond him. the excitable 'ol perfessor

[I, Brian]

Hi 'ol perfessor, and welcome to CR.