Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Objective Universal definition of Good and Evil

Hard to be objective about something like good and evil!

I'd say good is what helps the species survive and evil is what causes the species to stagnate and die.
 
Good and evil are clearly more than life and death. It's possible to conceive of a situation in which the brutal murder of an innocent would lead to the better survival of the species, yet we'd all condemn that as an evil act.

Anyway, there's no such thing. Neither of universal objectivity, nor of good and evil.
 
You boiled it down to a specific, I was being general. The people who found the baby's brutal murder "evil" obviously weren't being objective.
 
Cassie said:
You boiled it down to a specific, I was being general. The people who found the baby's brutal murder "evil" obviously weren't being objective.
Click to expand...

So you're in favour of utilitarianism? There's no objective value to the survival of the species, either. We can make specific, individual judgments - is this good or bad for me? Is this good or bad for my country? But saying this is good, or this is bad, without any limiting modifier is fundamentally flawed.
 
in order for a value judgment to be objective, it would have to be universal. evil to me/good to you is non objective.

Is there a universal way to decide what is good and what is evil? regardless of viewpoint?
 
Dual said:
So you're in favour of utilitarianism? There's no objective value to the survival of the species, either. We can make specific, individual judgments - is this good or bad for me? Is this good or bad for my country? But saying this is good, or this is bad, without any limiting modifier is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

How do you get that I'm in favor of one view or another? Cock asked for an objective definition, and I attempted to provide one. You, on the other hand, provided an example of "evil" that would provoke an emotional reaction from the people who knew of it.

If the act itself is evil (murdering an innocent) does that make the favorable outcome evil by association?
 
I would say no. I think it is possible to do evil deeds for good reasons.

the act is evil, the intent is good. neither changes the other.
 
Cassie said:
Hard to be objective about something like good and evil!

I'd say good is what helps the species survive and evil is what causes the species to stagnate and die.
Click to expand...

this is heading in the right direction, but you're limiting your thinking to our species. To be universal, it must encompass the universe.
 
Like the Omega Point theory? I don't know what is good or evil for the entire universe, so I can't even conceive of a definition for it. Maybe good is anything that doesn't cause the destruction of the universe, and evil is anything that could cause the universe to cease to exist? In that case, our species wouldn't matter at all, because our destruction wouldn't effect a thing.

Personally, I'm waiting for the Rapture of the Nerds :rapture:
 
Yeah, i guess I do mean that Cassie. I'd never read about it. I am reading a novel called Shantaram, and this is discussed. It intrigues me.

The cmplexity theory in particular. I was just kind of going along with it, reading...because the book isn't really about that, until the one guy asks why, if a rock and a tree are made of the same things, is a rock not seen as alive? the answer given was that the rock is a live....but because it is so simple, we cannot perceive it's life. I had to go back and read the complexity theroy discussion again....

anyway, in this context, they define good as anything that promotes or furthers the complexity of nature, and evil as anything that retards or restrains it.

I always thought i just knew good from evil..... but then, I was never really asked to define them or describe how I determine the difference in any detail.
 
You have to find the source of evil. Evil has permeated this world from somewhere.

"There is good and evil and not much in between"- RJD
 
Cock said:
Yeah, i guess I do mean that Cassie. I'd never read about it. I am reading a novel called Shantaram, and this is discussed. It intrigues me.

The cmplexity theory in particular. I was just kind of going along with it, reading...because the book isn't really about that, until the one guy asks why, if a rock and a tree are made of the same things, is a rock not seen as alive? the answer given was that the rock is a live....but because it is so simple, we cannot perceive it's life. I had to go back and read the complexity theroy discussion again....

anyway, in this context, they define good as anything that promotes or furthers the complexity of nature, and evil as anything that retards or restrains it.

I always thought i just knew good from evil..... but then, I was never really asked to define them or describe how I determine the difference in any detail.
Click to expand...


You do know good from evil, from your own subjective point of view. It is hard to think of good and evil objectively, though. It's hard to think of anything objectively. Dual is probably right about there being no such thing as good and evil, or objectivity... but you can still try to think of these things in a philosophical sense.
 
That's the point of these thoughts, luci. I'm suggesting that it is NOT a matter of opinion if we have an objective method of measuring it.
 
What book were you reading that got you interested in this? I am curious if it is an older book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top