Do good and bad exist?
Do they? We are told what is and isnt, weather it be our parents, institutions, or even the Disney movies we watched as a kid, but what would good and bad be if we had only nature? Would they exist at all, or would everything just simply be? We live our lives then die, regardless of what we do time continues to go forward and existence to some degree continues to exist, so does it truly matter what good and bad are to us. I feel like I'm just rambling on, but what are your thoughts on this?
Comments42
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
They do, but they differ depending on variants.
"Good" and "evil" are subjective terms, and thus, not particularly useful ones, in my opinion. That is, of course, assuming you meant "good" and "bad" on a moral axis.
I have to agree with dear old Democritus on this one, "All that exists are atoms and empty space. Everything else is just opinion." Out of ignorance, he failed to include "energy" in that model, but the sentiment is nevertheless quite accurate.
I have to agree with dear old Democritus on this one, "All that exists are atoms and empty space. Everything else is just opinion." Out of ignorance, he failed to include "energy" in that model, but the sentiment is nevertheless quite accurate.
Good and bad are words that are tied to opinions. They exist, but their complete definition varies. In many cases, most people can agree on what is good and what is bad on a general level. For example, most people would say that death is a bad thing, on a general level. Then you get down to the details and people immediately disagree. For example, some are going to say that death itself is bad, but since they believe in heaven, they believe it leads to something good. Some are going to say that dying for your country is a good thing. The list goes on.
On a general level, good and bad does not matter. People die, species die, stuff changes for the better, stuff changes for the worse and the universe couldn't care less. On a human level, good and bad matters greatly. Since we are a species with a survival instinct, we will all continue to care about good and bad, as we see bad as a threat to the survival of our genes.
On a general level, good and bad does not matter. People die, species die, stuff changes for the better, stuff changes for the worse and the universe couldn't care less. On a human level, good and bad matters greatly. Since we are a species with a survival instinct, we will all continue to care about good and bad, as we see bad as a threat to the survival of our genes.
yes good and bad do exist. If you think otherwise you are retarded. Good and bad exist just as mathematics exists, so saying murder is wrong is the same as saying a triangle has three sides.
It would depend on your definition of 'murder'.
killing the innocent.
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.
Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.
Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
Regards
DL
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.
Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.
Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
Regards
DL
Put it this way, there was no good or bad before life arose, only chemical reaction and physcial mechanisms.
Only subjectively.
Yes and no.
Nothing is inherently good or bad, but something is good or bad for you.
Nothing is inherently good or bad, but something is good or bad for you.
Yes, they do. But as concepts. Subjective concepts.
Yes, they exist. Just because it is something we have used, made or developed does not mean it does not exist, we made telephones, they exist. Its the same thing. Does it exist within the confinements of the animal world? Maybe, do we understand animals so well that we could define that?
Yes.
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.
Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.
Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
Regards
DL
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.
Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.
Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
Regards
DL
So, much, text! tl;dr plx? 
Maybe, do we understand animals so well that we could define that?
we do. behavioral ecology.
we do. behavioral ecology.
We understand them as much as, oh they get hurt, oh they're sad. We don't understand them to the depth we know humanity.
i'm not talking about human subjective assessments. i'm talking about science. we understand animals better than we understand humans.
in behavioral ecology you look at cost-benefit analyses, some of which can be quite complex, to quantify beneficial ("good") and detrimental ("bad") behaviors.
animals are for the most part quite predictable - optimizing benefit/cost ratios. humans are much less so. from a scientific standpoint, we understand animals far better than we understand people...
in behavioral ecology you look at cost-benefit analyses, some of which can be quite complex, to quantify beneficial ("good") and detrimental ("bad") behaviors.
animals are for the most part quite predictable - optimizing benefit/cost ratios. humans are much less so. from a scientific standpoint, we understand animals far better than we understand people...
All well and good, we still don't know how they think.
if you're referring to the qualitative nature of their consciousness, then we don't understand that any better than we understand the qualitative nature of any other person's consciousness. the only way we think we understand that is by conjecture based on the qualitative nature of our own consciousness. but people still make such conjectures about animal consciousness all the time. 
The only good is truth and the only evil is ignorance.
Live as the force of Life and you live as Good. Live as the force of death and you live as evil.
I cannot agree.
Read my long reply above and learn that you cannot help but do evil to those you compete against and make losers of.
Regards
DL
Read my long reply above and learn that you cannot help but do evil to those you compete against and make losers of.
Regards
DL
Yes it exist.
But as you can see in all the philosphies it is a concept that passed trough times and it is influenced by lot of factors(as the place and the society) so it is a continued-evolved concept with no common base(if we excluded the common sense of instinct and life), also they are abstract individual concept so the edge of the one or the other isn't really defined.
But as you can see in all the philosphies it is a concept that passed trough times and it is influenced by lot of factors(as the place and the society) so it is a continued-evolved concept with no common base(if we excluded the common sense of instinct and life), also they are abstract individual concept so the edge of the one or the other isn't really defined.
As some guy said above, the concepts of right and wrong are socially determined. If humans didn't exist, there would just be creatures living in the primitive ways nature intended. Sometimes bad things would happen to creatures because of other creatures. Like a lion taking down a zebra. But that is just nature - it's not 'evil.' If mankind never existed, those concepts would never have surfaced.
Of course, people do things that disrupt social functionality. The society could call this action a 'bad deed.' But again, bad and good can only exist as ideas when there is a society sophisticated enough to label them as such.
Of course, people do things that disrupt social functionality. The society could call this action a 'bad deed.' But again, bad and good can only exist as ideas when there is a society sophisticated enough to label them as such.