Exploring the Nature of "Good" and "Evil" Actions

[sage]

To FZ and others,
If an action increases the chances of our survival in future on the whole, then it has to be good right? The converse is also true. So a universal premise on which good and evil can be based upon exists(for humans that is). But it is difficult to evaluate the cumulative effects of an action, because human society is a bit like the weather, hard to predict what will happen in future. So an action can be considered good if its net effects increase the chances of our survival as far as we can perceive. Then even if an apparently altruistic action brought about harmful effects, we will not be accused of deliberate malice. Mistakes will occur and we will learn from them, it is deliberate evil that should be stopped.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, let's add a bit of confusion to sin bit. Sin is really evil in a religious context, in terms of doing what is against god's will.

That's not true, at least not in a Biblical sense. Remember the "Our Father" Prayer (of Matthew, chapter 6, I think)? It says to "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" (New World Translation). To "trespass" against another human being is the kind of "sin" I'm talking about.

No? Didn't you just say they are harming people by being greedy?

That's something I'm going to have to consider some more. After all, if they benefit more people by their wealth, than they harm, then their action should be considered "good", shouldn't they?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by sage
To FZ and others,
If an action increases the chances of our survival in future on the whole, then it has to be good right? The converse is also true. So a universal premise on which good and evil can be based upon exists(for humans that is). But it is difficult to evaluate the cumulative effects of an action, because human society is a bit like the weather, hard to predict what will happen in future. So an action can be considered good if its net effects increase the chances of our survival as far as we can perceive. Then even if an apparently altruistic action brought about harmful effects, we will not be accused of deliberate malice. Mistakes will occur and we will learn from them, it is deliberate evil that should be stopped.

Ouch. Watch out when you use the word future when discussing morals, because that opens up a whole other can of worms. Suppose I go back in time and murder someone. Evil, right? Nope, that victim is Hitler, and I had prevented the second world war. Which is good, right? Nope, because since the war didn't happen many people didn't die and one of them turned out to be the world's greatest dictator. Which is bad, now. But then, because of the fight again his dictatorship, scientists discovered the cure for cancer. Which is good, isn't it? And so on.

The moment you bring the future into this, you must bring in an arbitary threshold because else, you will simply never be able to make a single moral judgement. This is also entirely defeated by the idea of free choice, forcing moral decisions to become far more pragmatic. You see, the binding of what we perceive is still not an universal line as you perceive. And hence this is still not an universal basis, much less a non-arbitary one.

And chances of survival for whom? How do you judge the value of life, without transposing your own prejudices? And can you assume survival is always a good thing? It is a general fact that much of existence is a zero sum game - what is a win in some ways is almost always a loss in another way.

To "trespass" against another human being is the kind of "sin" I'm talking about.

I get the feeling that it is often impossible to act without trespassing against the freedom of another human being. Erm, can you clarify the idea of trespass please?

 

[Thoth]

Nature of Evil

In Zoroastrian philosophy, the Devil and God have equal powers and their struggle against each other has created the Universe and the world. The whole energy that runs this universe would stop abruptly if either God or Evil wins this on going war.

Some say that good and bad are relative terms, and what is evil in one culture, might be essential and good in another. Some others have this opinion that people themselves have created their own iniquity they subsequently fight against. In the Gnostic trend in religious thinking, the Devil is frequently revered as the true friend of humanity, and in the alchemical rosary, the Devil (Lucifer) says of himself: “I bring forth the light (Lucifer = the bringer of light), but the darkness belongs to my nature.” Hence, the duality

However, no point of view should deluded us into thinking that there is no Devil and evil doers, no matter what we choose to call it. We see evil manifest itself through an individual, groups or actions. We see evil through the experience of dependency, lack of will, in the failure of good intentions, as well as in course of actions that violate our convictions.

I believe the best analogy with which one could describe the desolating effect of a demon, is the effect of the rabies virus. If such a virus gets into a nerve of a person bitten by a rabid animal, it is known that the virus wonders to exactly that place in the brain from which it can rule the entire person. It causes the bitten individual to refuse water so that the virus cannot be washed out of the mouth, it causes him to wonder around so that he can come into contact with the greatest number of other beings, and finally to have a biting frenzy so that the virus can be transplanted to a new carrier.

If one considers the actions of individuals who have created terror in the world, it is easy to see how these individuals and groups have mechanically done what has served the production of the virus of Evil. Autonomous complexes behave in exactly the same manner; they distort or destroy the entire personality (in these cases they have contaminated the entire culture or religion).

 

[sage]

You misunderstand my aim. I am not trying to say that a deed can be called good or bad in absolute terms. As you said suppose a german killed Hitler before he had become a member of the Nazi party. Was the act good or evil. It was evil because there was no way for the person to know what Hitler would have done in future. For all intents and purposes he is at the time of his death an ordinary german citizen and thus murdering him would be a punishable offence in all courts of law. what I am suggesting is given the amount of knowledge a person has, does there exist an absolute procedure by which he can ascertain whether his action is good or bad? So a member of an African tribe may kill a lion and be pardoned as he did not know of the law prohibiting people from doing such a thing, but an educated man supposed to be conversant with the laws of the state will certainly be punished. Being ignorant of the law a tribesman can conceivably consider the act of killing a lion beneficial as it increases his status in the tribal society, but the same cannot be said for the other person.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
I get the feeling that it is often impossible to act without trespassing against the freedom of another human being. Erm, can you clarify the idea of trespass please?

To trespass against someone...hmmmm...I suppose it's to do something to another person that person doesn't approve of. Usually this results in injury of some kind (physical, mental, emotional, etc).

 

[FZ+]

what I am suggesting is given the amount of knowledge a person has, does there exist an absolute procedure by which he can ascertain whether his action is good or bad?

Then I am saying that it isn't an absolute procedure, because human minds are not clear, and people may prize one form of survival over another, or that survival simply isn't an issue. It is another subjective procedure based on the person's beliefs. Ie. this may be true for a calm thinking survivalist, but it is still an arbitary and specific measure.

To trespass against someone...hmmmm...I suppose it's to do something to another person that person doesn't approve of. Usually this results in injury of some kind (physical, mental, emotional, etc).

But how directly is that? What if you instruct someone to do something against another person that the second person doesn't approve of. I mean, does this involve indirect influences?

It seems that we still have a problem - what about the approval of the other person? How would that person do to judge to get their approval, on the basis of morals? I mean, this deflects the choice part of morality onto the target, which still results in the target making an arbitary choice.

Secondly, is it really possible to take an action without doing harm in a shape or form?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
But how directly is that?

Well, actually, I don't think an action is considered "Evil" if one did not do it on purpose. It is not "good" either - it's probably just considered "neutral" ("honest mistakes", that kind of thing).

What if you instruct someone to do something against another person that the second person doesn't approve of?

Not really relevant, as you haven't actually done anything to the second person.

I mean, does this involve indirect influences?

Oh. Yes, I think so. Every action that one makes is "potentially evil" - or, rather, it is a potential "coat-tail" cause of evil.

It seems that we still have a problem - what about the approval of the other person? How would that person do to judge to get their approval, on the basis of morals?

What do you mean?

Secondly, is it really possible to take an action without doing harm in a shape or form?

That's why all actions are potentially "coat-tail" causes of evil. However, that doesn't mean that the action is evil.