WhiteRaven
03-31-2007, 04:33 AM
hello class, today we will learn about why good and evil, as well as morality, are idiotic concepts, that make less sense than "flibbidy flobbidy floop" kidding aside, first, as with anything, to learn why it makes so little sense, we must obtain the definition. to obtain the definition, I will first go to dictionary.com, the results are astonishing:
"morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:"
okay, now what do Moral, immoral, and wicked mean? let's see. we shall begin with wicked:
"1. evil or morally bad in principle or practice; sinful; iniquitous: wicked people; wicked habits.
2. mischievous or playfully malicious: These wicked kittens upset everything.
3. distressingly severe, as a storm, wound, or cold: a wicked winter.
4. unjustifiable; dreadful; beastly: wicked prices; a wicked exam.
5. having a bad disposition; ill-natured; mean: a wicked horse.
6. spiteful; malevolent; vicious: a wicked tongue.
7. extremely troublesome or dangerous: wicked roads.
8. unpleasant; foul: a wicked odor.
we have successfully been returned to where we began, okay, so let's try immoral the first definition seems to be a breakthrough...
"1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."
so there we have it, evil is "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."
in other words, if you've ever tried on a dress without being a girl, or not mowed your lawn when everyone said your grass was too tall, congratulations, you are evil. anyone who violates a taboo, whether it is a law or not, is evil.
here is another definition
"2. not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" "
"a base, degrading way of life"
... not mowing your lawn is degrading? gee if only I had known that sooner, I sure wish I knew such ridiculous inconsequential acts as choosing not to mow one's lawn were degrading sooner.
at this point I'm moving onto some more philosophical definitions, first, however I would like to put a few things from an article I once read here:
"It has often been said that "good" is anything that helps others or yourself and "evil" is anything that harms others or yourself. This rather shallow viewpoint does not take into account that every act harms something, and likewise helps something. Nothing can eat without killing, nothing can be built without breaking something else, and no motion is possible without displacing something from its natural place."
"Some say that "good" is anything done out of love, and "evil" is anything done out of hate, yet "love" and "hate" are so similar as to be nearly identical in many respects. Both love and hate are obsessive fixations on a single target, be it a person, pastime or abstract concept.."
"What is the opposite of God-worship? It certainly isn't Devil-worship, as the worship of an evil god of a particular pantheon is still done in recognizance of that pantheon as it is arranged by those who worship the God. At best, it is simply a reversal of the same, with little more than cosmetic changes. Worship the winner, or worship the loser, and one is still dependent upon the outcome of someone else's game."
"What is the opposite of Good? We should define "Good" first. Most common uses of the word define "good" as being more beneficial than detrimental, although we should not tether ourselves to the vernacular usage of this word, any more than we would with any other. Is "Good" what is pleasant? It cannot be, as there are many unpleasant things that must be done, and are good for you. Is "Good" what is helpful? It cannot be, as a great many "Bad Things" are done by people who are doing it mainly to benefit themselves. Is "Good" what is more beneficial for Life? It cannot be, because the Earth is practically dead today compared to the Earth of 75 million years ago.
Could it be possible that what we call "Good" is nothing more than what pleases us? Nothing more than what makes us feel good about ourselves? This is the only logical conclusion remaining to us, that what we define as "Good" is nothing more than a pleasant feeling we give ourselves as a gift for fulfilling our personal preferences.
Is this "Good"? An arbitrary set of accumulated conditions which we please ourselves by fulfilling? If this is so, or if it's not, it's of little consequence for practical purposes. Suffice it to say that "Good" is good. In that case, what is "Evil?"
True Evil is always pleasant to us, as any perceived Evil has failed to dig itself deeply enough into us. Any evil which could be recognized as such, fails to successfully bypass our normal moral prejudices. True Evil is always innocuous, inconspicuous and perhaps even banal. Every day, millions and millions of people commit Evil acts, all the while feeling completely comfortable with their decision, as long as they don't bother to analyze their motives. Were they to do that, they'd realize that they'd betrayed their own morals willingly and deliberately, no matter how they rationalize their actions.
By the same token established before, "Evil" (as "the opposite of Good") would not be defined as that which displeases us by our own moral standards. "Evil" would be the act of taking the position of deliberately making our personal morals irrelevant with regard to our ambitions and desires. "Evil", by this viewpoint, would be the ultimate freedom, asserting the power of Mankind to choose his own destiny."
according to wikipedia: "In religion and ethics, evil refers to the morally objectionable aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings — those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction."
a wanton penchant for destruction? there is nothing wrong with a bit of destruction, one must remember that destruction allows a potential for new creation, this definition, however, poses a larger problem, if one is constantly manipulating others, through deception, persuasion, what have you, most would see this as evil, yet if the intent was to help others, then it would not be evil by this definition, also, what of a soldier who wages war to defend others?
" the opposite of goodness, which itself refers to aspects which are life-affirming, peaceful, and constructive."
Conflict is necessity. through conflict we learn and grow, and through struggle, we learn value, we do not know the value of something unless we earn it.
was Hitler evil? his desire was to allow humanity to reach perfection, he saw those he killed as a disease to be wiped out, he certainly could have used them as soldiers, rather than lampshades, but the fact remains, his desire was to see humanity perfected, completed, he believed what he was doing was right.
also, anyone who thinks good comes from god and evil from the devil, google "euthyphro dilemma"
"morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:"
okay, now what do Moral, immoral, and wicked mean? let's see. we shall begin with wicked:
"1. evil or morally bad in principle or practice; sinful; iniquitous: wicked people; wicked habits.
2. mischievous or playfully malicious: These wicked kittens upset everything.
3. distressingly severe, as a storm, wound, or cold: a wicked winter.
4. unjustifiable; dreadful; beastly: wicked prices; a wicked exam.
5. having a bad disposition; ill-natured; mean: a wicked horse.
6. spiteful; malevolent; vicious: a wicked tongue.
7. extremely troublesome or dangerous: wicked roads.
8. unpleasant; foul: a wicked odor.
we have successfully been returned to where we began, okay, so let's try immoral the first definition seems to be a breakthrough...
"1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."
so there we have it, evil is "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."
in other words, if you've ever tried on a dress without being a girl, or not mowed your lawn when everyone said your grass was too tall, congratulations, you are evil. anyone who violates a taboo, whether it is a law or not, is evil.
here is another definition
"2. not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" "
"a base, degrading way of life"
... not mowing your lawn is degrading? gee if only I had known that sooner, I sure wish I knew such ridiculous inconsequential acts as choosing not to mow one's lawn were degrading sooner.
at this point I'm moving onto some more philosophical definitions, first, however I would like to put a few things from an article I once read here:
"It has often been said that "good" is anything that helps others or yourself and "evil" is anything that harms others or yourself. This rather shallow viewpoint does not take into account that every act harms something, and likewise helps something. Nothing can eat without killing, nothing can be built without breaking something else, and no motion is possible without displacing something from its natural place."
"Some say that "good" is anything done out of love, and "evil" is anything done out of hate, yet "love" and "hate" are so similar as to be nearly identical in many respects. Both love and hate are obsessive fixations on a single target, be it a person, pastime or abstract concept.."
"What is the opposite of God-worship? It certainly isn't Devil-worship, as the worship of an evil god of a particular pantheon is still done in recognizance of that pantheon as it is arranged by those who worship the God. At best, it is simply a reversal of the same, with little more than cosmetic changes. Worship the winner, or worship the loser, and one is still dependent upon the outcome of someone else's game."
"What is the opposite of Good? We should define "Good" first. Most common uses of the word define "good" as being more beneficial than detrimental, although we should not tether ourselves to the vernacular usage of this word, any more than we would with any other. Is "Good" what is pleasant? It cannot be, as there are many unpleasant things that must be done, and are good for you. Is "Good" what is helpful? It cannot be, as a great many "Bad Things" are done by people who are doing it mainly to benefit themselves. Is "Good" what is more beneficial for Life? It cannot be, because the Earth is practically dead today compared to the Earth of 75 million years ago.
Could it be possible that what we call "Good" is nothing more than what pleases us? Nothing more than what makes us feel good about ourselves? This is the only logical conclusion remaining to us, that what we define as "Good" is nothing more than a pleasant feeling we give ourselves as a gift for fulfilling our personal preferences.
Is this "Good"? An arbitrary set of accumulated conditions which we please ourselves by fulfilling? If this is so, or if it's not, it's of little consequence for practical purposes. Suffice it to say that "Good" is good. In that case, what is "Evil?"
True Evil is always pleasant to us, as any perceived Evil has failed to dig itself deeply enough into us. Any evil which could be recognized as such, fails to successfully bypass our normal moral prejudices. True Evil is always innocuous, inconspicuous and perhaps even banal. Every day, millions and millions of people commit Evil acts, all the while feeling completely comfortable with their decision, as long as they don't bother to analyze their motives. Were they to do that, they'd realize that they'd betrayed their own morals willingly and deliberately, no matter how they rationalize their actions.
By the same token established before, "Evil" (as "the opposite of Good") would not be defined as that which displeases us by our own moral standards. "Evil" would be the act of taking the position of deliberately making our personal morals irrelevant with regard to our ambitions and desires. "Evil", by this viewpoint, would be the ultimate freedom, asserting the power of Mankind to choose his own destiny."
according to wikipedia: "In religion and ethics, evil refers to the morally objectionable aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings — those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction."
a wanton penchant for destruction? there is nothing wrong with a bit of destruction, one must remember that destruction allows a potential for new creation, this definition, however, poses a larger problem, if one is constantly manipulating others, through deception, persuasion, what have you, most would see this as evil, yet if the intent was to help others, then it would not be evil by this definition, also, what of a soldier who wages war to defend others?
" the opposite of goodness, which itself refers to aspects which are life-affirming, peaceful, and constructive."
Conflict is necessity. through conflict we learn and grow, and through struggle, we learn value, we do not know the value of something unless we earn it.
was Hitler evil? his desire was to allow humanity to reach perfection, he saw those he killed as a disease to be wiped out, he certainly could have used them as soldiers, rather than lampshades, but the fact remains, his desire was to see humanity perfected, completed, he believed what he was doing was right.
also, anyone who thinks good comes from god and evil from the devil, google "euthyphro dilemma"