Good and Evil

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Good and Evil file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Good and Evil book. Happy reading Good and Evil Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Good and Evil at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Good and Evil Pocket Guide.


Good exists, but evil does not. A force working in opposition to an equal and contradictory force of good. But this is simply not so. Rather, what we call evil is nothing more than the absence of good. If God is good, then all He created was good. In other words, evil does not exist. God saw all that He had made, and it was very good Genesis Good and Evil — Evil is the Absence of Good When it comes to good and evil, we are not suggesting that there is no evil in the world, but rather suggesting that it does not exist in and of itself.

As with light and dark. Light exists, and can not only be proven to exist, but can be measured and artificially created.

Good and Evil

Darkness, however, does not exist. The answer to your question depends on your ultimate goal. If a strong nation is what you desire, the most logical thing to do is realising your vision through any means, don't you agree? Lack of empathy leads to consequential thinking and let's a person think clearly by weighing the results of an action and decide if it's the logical thing to do. Well stated analysis, but I'd be careful using Ghandi as my saintly paragon of virtue. What about his racism toward the Kaffirs? What about his ivory tower, New Age, cultish utopianism?

Indeed, Gandhi spent decades making sympathetic noises to the poor. It took until for India to shake off Mahatmanomics. Since liberalization of its economy, exports have nearly tripled as a percentage of GDP and per-capita real wealth has more than doubled. Economics that hurt the moral well-being of an individual or a nation are immoral and, therefore, sinful. In essence, Ghandi was more a knee-jerk, celebrity activist a la Jane Fonda, or Sean Penn than a truly enlightened, "good" leader of mankind.

Einstein reportedly commented that "scientists make poor philosophers. In his second paragraph, Dr. Interestingly, the antecedent to the first word in this sentence "they" is "'good' and 'evil'". But after describing "good and evil" as "flexible", he attempts to justify this statement not by speaking of good and evil itself, but the capacity of humans to be a bit of both, and to "move" on the moral spectrum from "better" to "worse" or vice-versa. This is totally a non sequitor at best and nonsensical at worst, as his statement says nothing about the "flexibility" of good or evil.

Furthermore, the example actually implies that good and evil are NOT, in fact, flexible--for if these concepts are flexible, then to say that one can "be rehabilitated and eventually display good qualities" is meaningless On another level, the author's contention says absolutely nothing about the person being "rehabilitated", but only about the author!

Good vs Evil - police swat vehicles - battles for children

Frighteningly, this implies that for the subject to be rehabilitated, he must conform to the author's definition of goodness! This sounds like a plot from a bad B movie where the totalitarian dictator forces everyone to be just like himself! Also implicit in the author's statement is that one can "be rehabilitated and eventually display EVIL qualities" With that oh-so intellectual-sounding statement, the author gave up his right to call anything "good"!

Good and Evil: Introduction to Ethics

With one breath, he denies that the concepts of good and evil are anything other than one's opinion; with the next, he tries to say that men can be made "better", or "more good" And regardless of how subjective he claims these concepts to be, he still speaks of them as if he knows what the definition of Good is for all of humanity! It means the ability to empathise with other people, to feel compassion for them, and to put their needs before your own. It means benevolence, altruism and selflessness, and self-sacrifice towards a greater cause - all qualities which stem from a sense of empathy.

It means being able to see beyond the superficial difference of race, gender or nationality and relate to a common human essence beneath them. Oddly enough, though the author has declared goodness to be subjective, this is not a subjective definition. This is an objective criteria that can be evaluated externally without regard to the subjective observer.

Furthermore, the author has not defined "goodness", he has described actions and attitudes that he deems to be "good", without telling us what makes them any better than their antithesis. However, there obviously were many persons who hated these men for the stance they took as evidenced by their deaths , and who would call them anything but "good". So which is it? Were their actions taken on behalf of civil rights "good" or "evil"? When Dr. King's efforts led to Civil Rights laws being passed in the United States, was that objectively better than the previous state of affairs, or was it simply different?

The same arguments may be made against the author's simplistic description of evil. Stalin and Hitler had their supporters who would have called them "good".

  • The Firefly Effect: Build Teams That Capture Creativity and Catapult Results;
  • Navigation menu.
  • Windows 7 For Dummies Quick Reference.
  • Good and Evil: Introduction to Ethics | Education | Faculty of Philosophy | University of Groningen.

By denying the objectivity of good and evil, the author has no grounds on which to say these supporters were wrong or misguided. They simply have a different definition of "good" and "evil". He then attempts to defend the concept of the flexibility of good and evil. However, he again doesn't describe these concepts, but rather the behaviors of men. These are not the same thing.

School for Good and Evil

We would say that a runner completing a mile race in less than four minutes was a fast runner To describe the meaning of "fast" by describing the race is illogical. Rather, "fast" is an adjective that describes in broad terms the behavior of the runner's objective performance. While it is imprecise, it is not subjective. It points decidedly to one side of the scale, while its opposite, "slow" points to the other. While Usain Bolt's "fast" might be incredibly beyond my own "fast", in no case would one say that you could simply flip the definitions so that running a mile in 4 minutes was "faster" than walking a mile in an hour!

But such a disparity is common when discussing moral issues. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Many say that it is immoral to prevent their union, while many others say that it immoral to allow their union. The two positions turn the scale on its head! For the runners, their objective velocity underpins the relative terms used for descriptive purposes.

The same must be true for "good" and "evil" if the concepts are to have any meaning at all. An underlying standard must exist, external to all men, that defines the continuum of morality. Only then can these terms have any coherence. While I disagree strongly with most of the article, the author does make one very insightful comment near the end For "evil" to be an aberration implies that there is a standard from which it diverges.

In this, the author agrees with St. For good to be diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished, something must remain of its original nature as long as it exists at all. For no matter what kind or however insignificant a thing may be, the good which is its "nature" cannot be destroyed without the thing itself being destroyed. There is good reason, therefore, to praise an uncorrupted thing, and if it were indeed an incorruptible thing which could not be destroyed, it would doubtless be all the more worthy of praise.

When, however, a thing is corrupted, its corruption is an evil because it is, by just so much, a privation. From this it follows that there is nothing to be called evil if there is nothing good. A good that wholly lacks an evil aspect is entirely good. Where there is some evil in a thing, its good is defective or defectible. Thus there can be no evil where there is no good. This leads us to a surprising conclusion: that, since every being, in so far as it is a being, is good, if we then say that a defective thing is bad, it would seem to mean that we are saying that what is evil is good, that only what is good is ever evil and that there is no evil apart from something good.

This is because every actual entity is good. Nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity. Therefore, there can be nothing evil except something good. What is the source for the definition of good above? Apparently the definition is given with the presupposition that it is inherently true and thus no footnotes or references.

But why? Who says so? Why can we agree? For the most part I'd agree being connected can make you far less evil. I certainly like to speak to anyone. I am far from evil when I'm less connected. But it is interesting to think I can be closer to altruistic when I'm more connected. Makes sense, for sure. Wow, so many comments to this article! Still need to go through it all.

Accessibility links

Some of you should write a book, This question has been on my mind lately moreso than ever. For using this acquired definition for myself evil and goodness can both be found within those ascribed to religious and non-religious beliefs. It's alarmingly overwhelming and thought-provoking. Then it always go to show, 'never judge a book by it's cover' and maybe 'some covers are just the same as the book on the inside". Sounds too simple, but this is the truth in my experiences.

A possibility exists that during interactions with an individual, if that person demonstrates more good to himself and others, then this can be a sure sign. But, like Shakespeare has stated, "this world is a stage and we are the actors". I think intuitively as well you may gather some sense of a person's motive. Yet, still it can get tricky!