Why have the concept of good and evil. Does it exist in nature or just in the collective imagination of humanity? We are of course of nature so yes, it does exist in nature itself but is it a reality, something tangible?
It would appear that good is hard to pin down as one's good is another's evil. At times it seems more like preference than anything else. Maybe even someone else's preference that has been learned, some tacitly, some directly. If it is a learned behavior, how can it be good? shouldn't 'good' be so natural that it is a part of our structure?
I have a dog. Is he a good dog? What would make him so? What would make him a bad dog? Again, it comes down to preference. For many, a bad dog is one that pees on the rug and chews all of the shoes and a good dog is one that follows command and obeys the lessons of the master.
From a dog's perspective, is the label of good or bad based on these things fitting? After all, it is a dog, an animal with instincts to act, rules created in its very nature. Do those rules say 'Do what people tell you'? By the dog's definition (if it possible could have one) a good dog is probably one that does normal dog things.
Good behavior for humans always means some form of control. Often, the control of the very natures that make us human. I find this interesting in many ways. Especially how willing we are to give up our uniqueness to fit into a casting mold.
We are products of our environment and perhaps that is part of the problem for once that meant to be at the mercy of the elements, our two hands to build, our two feet to run. That environment has been gone for millennia and in its place is an environment contrived from the countless minds that went before to create what is. Now, like the dog acting to get the treat, we conform to the will of our environment.
And it tells us to seek what is good and destroy what is evil. A tale as old as time. Human time at least. Seeking what is good is easy, just look to what all others do within the group and that is the accepted good. Evil poses a problem.
For evil is wily according to the dogooders, we never know what trick evil will play next to bend our ear, gain our trust and drive us to do things that are unnatural, in our created environment. We must be vigilant and seek evil where it breeds, in what is not good. What is not like us.
Evil is always on the other side of us, opposed to good, the night to our day. For we cannot be evil for we do the work of good. Everyone in our group does the work of good for the actions passed down through the ages are the movements of good incarnate. History has proven it to us for the predicted future is that good always prevails. And here we are, prevailing.
But where is this evil foe, where do they live? For if we knew that, then we can eradicate evil forever. Wipe it from the face of the earth and harmony and peace will reign for once evil is no longer present, only good can be. Is it not this simple?
Good and evil seem very complicated and there are many exceptions to the rules. Do not kill, unless. Do unto others, unless. Do not drink, unless. Do not do this and that or if you do you are evil, unless.
I wonder, if nature would be so complicated. Complex yes, but the rule of nature is to maximize opportunity within what is possible, even if that instance does not survive for more than a moment. The rules of humans are to limit possibility itself. Nature does not say no, it says, let's see in the instant and what may not work today, may tomorrow and what is working now could break tomorrow.
Endless variations possible from endless mutations, but the world of humans is trying to create a solid framework to order the world. The perfect solution. Nature says, it is perfect now even though the now is always changing, until it changes no more.
And because of this change, nature is unlikely to concern itself with good and evil for it is on the only path possible, forward, straight down the middle. There is no deviation as it rolls on endlessly down this one way track.
But, as limited humans we are still at the mercy of our mind, what we have learned and the environment we have created; and we must decide what good and evil is to us. Perhaps though, it is not a question we can answer as a group, it is only one we can discover as an individual.
What would happen if you looked within and discovered you were evil? Would you believe it, or justify it away and reclassify what it means to be good?
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
Interesting and BIG topic, but I think good and evil are objective and real, but when you ask how that applies to your dog kind of confuses that issue.
Here is why:
A dog, and a person for that matter, are measured by a cummulation of their life, yesterday, today and tomorrow, not on the basis of one action, or choice.
So a dog being "good" is decided and measured by an objective review of their general life, and attitude.
That is the only way to quantify good vs bad.
So, I would argue, good and bad are real and objective but when someone is being called good or bad the speaker is describing a complex being, across a broad time period, and describing their life generally, not specifically because of one act or action.
So you can be generally good and do bad, or generally bad and do good.
CS Lewis describes being good in this way, not by what I do, but by how try successfully refrain from the bad they feel drawn to do. Something like that.
Meaning we are all tempted to do bad, all of us, and we all fail the test sometimes, so being good in practical terms means making choices that show you on the whole do what is generally good, particularly when you have had a chance and a reason to do bad, but didnt.
Hmmm. Complicated and intriguing.
So a person that is generally good but murders their entire family one night can be considered a good person as it is only one outlier event?
The dog I think is always good because it will only ever act on instinct, not premeditated intention. We might classify it as bad but, who are we to judge acts of nature? It is opinion only.
If humans did not exist (no sentient being) is there still good and evil?
indeed it is :)
With respect to the "good" man who suddenly murders his family, first all actions have weight, it is good to smile at someone, but that good is not equivolent to buying a homeless man a new suit and getting him a job, that second "good" is bigger, and more meaningful.
The weight of good needs to be measured, just in the same way we measure the consistency of actions, to in the end decide, whether one is "good" or "bad".
But I do not really believe any of us are "good", in an deep way, only that we can act good, and be "practically" good, meaning for utility sake you say "John is a good guy" or "Dwayne is a bad guy" and we know what you mean. You dont mean always, and in every instance, only that across time, and all actions considered, they are either mostly "good" or mostly "bad".
Really, I believe we are "bad", in that we "sin", meaning, "miss the mark", and fall short of what we ought to be. This is my Christian faith talking, but again, the question of whether I am practically good or bad is still worth discussing, and then secondly, if we want to move into a theological debate, we can move from "practical" good vs bad, into "obejective good vs bad".
I'd say objectively we all know what is "good and bad", but whether we act what we know or deny it, and do what we prefer, is another question all together.
ie., we know its bad to steal, lie, or kill, but we sometimes knowingly do them anyways. That to me doesnt mean good and bad, are false, or fake, only that we who are free to act, make poor choices, when we act.
who provides the measure?
I don't think that this is necessarily true although there is likely an average. Still, take away any form of self- seeing thinker and I don't know if the universe itself would discern good from bad, there would only be 'possible'.
Why is the Buddha weighted more heavily than the fly?
Discernment is key to be able to recognize it. Like truth. Truth doesn't exist as a thing in itself. We have many words to describe reality, truth is one, good and evil are other among many :) They are very valuable descriptors :) We can describe them personally and collectively if we agree on foundational definitions and principles that are used to discern them.
We can describe them and live by them yet, it doesn't mean that they actually exist. Much like the concept of money.
Neither does love. It doesn't diminish the value of the words to describe things just because they aren't primary substances in themselves. Color doesn't exist in itself either, only specific color frequencies do, but color itself is not something that exists in itself. Some things are expressed and exist through primary substances that do exist in and of themselves. Actions exist, and those actions that harm can be characterized as evil, even if evil doesn't exist in and of itself separate from the primary things it is expressed from.
We're all basically evil. At least to an extent.
We're all basically good. At least to an extent.
'Ah, you are both correct', as the philosopher from a certain story said. 'Wait', said another observer, 'But their statements contradict each other - they cannot be both correct!' 'You know what?', Said the philosopher, 'You are also correct.'
So contradict each other you do not. Complete each other both hypotheses do. Balance we speak of.
lol :D
@tarazkp maybe, although I have a feeling the evil prevails :/
Each time I read your story I think of a book. This time it is the 'Requiem for Homo Sapiens' by David Zindell. His main character is the ultimate model for good and he strives to abide by two principles - the law of ahimsa (Hindu or something like that) concept of never hurting another being intentionally - by action or thought; and the other thing - to eventually be able to say Yes to the Universe. And everything in it. Including, as he would realize, hurting other beings if that is really necessary.
In Western philosophy terms I think of The Golden Rule of Kant. In free form it is something like: 'Do not treat others in ways you wouldn't like to be treated yourself.'
The golden rule appears in all major religions in some form as it seems the easiest to understand.
the universe would just see possible.
Exactly :)
We all have evil within us, and good. The holocaust taught us that, if anything.
Dogs are more like us than your article allows, I feel. They know damn well when they've been bad or good, and they're way smarter than we sometimes give them credit for. Like humans, dogs are pack creatures, they exist within a social fabric, and that's why I'd bring them under the construct of laws of good and evil. It's why we're such good pals with dogs, I think, better than with any other animal. :)
But, do the or is this based on what we consider, what we rad into their behaviours. We can't possibly know what they actually think (at this point).
But again, we are applying human definition to an unknowable.
Tests show that dogs read human emotions about as well as we do, I heard. I really think the whole "they're only animals, we're just anthropomorphising" is wrong. Maybe they're only as smart as very small children, but they are smart, emotionally, in a human way. That's just what I think, anyway. :)
I think that inside of us we want to be wild and free, but most of us are afraid of being labeled right or wrong because of the many stereotypes that exist in the world. You don't have to worry if you are good or bad, you just have to live life, behind every sigh are hidden several concerns. Wouldn't that be a bad thing?
Does it matter if you cause harm to others?
We will always inevitably harm the world, whether you try to be good or bad.
at what point does good become bad do you think, where is the line?
When we stop doing our nature, when we do something that doesn't agree with us, when we start to have restrictions on our actions, that's what I think, there's evil.
So a psychopath acting on their nature is inherently good?
So a psychopath
Acting on their nature is
Inherently good?
- tarazkp
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
Who has the power to say he's doing something wrong? It is his nature and it must be so.
Hi @tarazkp!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.104 which ranks you at #254 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 1 places in the last three days (old rank 253).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 426 contributions, your post is ranked at #6.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Good post ....
Thanks for sharing @tarazkp