# Is there such a thing as good or evil, moral and imoral?



## Alchemical Romance (Nov 26, 2009)

So I was wondering. Please answer. What is good and what is evil? What is moral and what imoral. Of course I have my view but i'm interested in other opinions on the matter.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

I don't think good and evil exist, and instead believe that actions have to be judged by their context, their motive and the situation the action is taking place in. The world is very much made up of shades of grey rather than black/white, good/evil.

I think to be moral is to ensure that your actions have as little negative effects on others and the environment as possible, whilst to be immoral is to not care, and even aim to make their actions as negative towards others as possible.


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

I wish the poll options were a bit more broad.

I don't believe good or evil can be defined. You can take a look at how people have felt about it across centuries, but you're always bound to come across some overlap. People can believe what they want, but it doesn't always make it correct, either. Morality, however, I think you can define. I don't think anyone else can dictate their moral laws on anyone else, but one actual example of morality in most societies are their laws and punishments.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I definitely believe in good and evil, but as with anything else, there is ambiguity about what is real, due to the inescapably subjective nature of our perceptions. Absolute good exists in theory, but would require both omniscience and a perfect will to be known and put into practice. It is my personal belief that authentic love is the ultimate good, but I am frequently confused when trying to determine what is the most authentically loving choice in any situation. Even when I feel certain, I am also limited by an imperfect will that sometimes intentionally chooses to do the wrong thing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## chestbuster (Dec 2, 2009)

Of course there are such things. They exist as notions/concepts and dictionary-entries. :tongue:


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

Yes. Reality is entirely subject to ideas. The real question is - are the ideas maleable?


----------



## Munchies (Jun 22, 2009)

Alchemical Romance said:


> So I was wondering. Please answer. What is good and what is evil? What is moral and what imoral. Of course I have my view but i'm interested in other opinions on the matter.


 you must be a pretty sick person if you think that tying up a baby to a tree and to a car and driving away isnt evil or imoral.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

If you need an actual physical representation: I am good and moral; whereas, my ex-fiance is evil and immoral.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

I would say that good and evil exist only in the human mind.
If there is no human subject to witness an act, then the morality of the act becomes an irrelevant concept.

I am relatively confidant that the concept of morality exists as an expected byproduct of the convergence of human consciousness, primordial instinct, and rational thought. Therefore, I think it will be possible to define an objective standard for morality using pure logic.




I'm not sure how to answer your poll, because I think that good and evil "exist," but only as an idea in the mind.


----------



## fractaloverlap (Mar 30, 2009)

I am still making up my mind about my morality system. Even questioning whether there can be "good" at all, due to our inherent and inescapable selfishness.

For practical purposes, I consider there to be no absolute good or evil. The morality of an action can be judged by its consequences.


----------



## Drake (Oct 31, 2009)

Alchemical Romance said:


> So I was wondering. Please answer. What is good and what is evil? What is moral and what imoral. Of course I have my view but i'm interested in other opinions on the matter.


On good and Evil, this is a concept that seems to be changed by society. It used to be perfectly acceptable to touter and maim a prisoner, now society deems that it would be evil to have someone drawn and quartered. Hanged, drawn and quartered - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the subject of Morality, moral and immoral are both defined by societies standards and personal choice and action.



Slider said:


> If you need an actual physical representation: I am good and moral; whereas, my ex-fiance is evil and immoral.


Off topic, but I feel the same way about my ex-wife



Azrael said:


> I would say that good and evil exist only in the human mind.
> If there is no human subject to witness an act, then the morality of the act becomes an irrelevant concept.


I am not sure of your meaning on with the above quote. Assuming the act is being done by human hands (morality being a human construct), then there will always be a human subject to witness the act.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

It's this question that pushed me to question and detach from my religion. I still feel very lost about it- I think about it everyday.


----------



## Yours (May 7, 2009)

No, I do not believe that there is good or evil. It's all quite subjective. If something were to benefit me and cause distress to yourself, then it'd be good to me and evil to you. Vice versa. 

Morality is merely something that is injected into our brains throughout the years, whether through government and laws or through religion and gods. 

Laws are there to keep things in order because certain actions are "bad". Through this scenario, morals are nothing but what people want to instill unto those who may cause them some form of distress, something that they would not appreciate. What better way to stop someone then to restrict their rights and punish them if they try to exercise those very rights?

And through the religious scenario, it's simply a tool of manipulation to keep the populace under control. It's a more of a base for: "If you do blah and blah and blah, then you'll be sent to a fiery pit of doom to burn in anguish and suffering for eternity and beyond!"

By the way. People who vote no and do not believe in morality are known as:


> *Moral nihilism*, also known as *ethical nihilism*, is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.


Moral nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moral Nihilism: Nihilism, Nihilists, and Nihilistic Philosophy
Moral nihilism


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Drake said:


> I am not sure of your meaning on with the above quote. Assuming the act is being done by human hands (morality being a human construct), then there will always be a human subject to witness the act.


The second sentence was one of those philosophically-confused concepts that is trying to make a point without concerning itself with contradictory implications when applied to an actual situation. :tongue:

Actually, the first sentence made the same point in a different way. :crazy:


----------



## Rao (Apr 4, 2009)

I just think that things need to be balanced, and your own personal perspective on life makes that balance. Everyone has their own perception of Good and Evil and Moral and Immoral.


----------



## More Tea (Aug 19, 2009)

Huge question. 

My take on it is that limiting one's own or others' true growth and/or connections to the "Deep Self" (if you'll pardon a less-than-concrete term) is evil and immoral. That pretty much covers everything from the actions of the Mugabe government to the quieter evils of making snarky remarks to the strange kid in your class. I'm a Jungian: the development of the fulfilled psyche--self actualization--is good and moral. 

This isn't the most detailed answer ever, and I realize it has some heavy gaps, but it's about what I can give you on something this esoteric--especially at 2-something A.M. when I'm trying to get myself back onto night shifts. Bleah.


----------



## chestbuster (Dec 2, 2009)

Drake said:


> On good and Evil, this is a concept that seems to be changed by society. It used to be perfectly acceptable to touter and maim a prisoner, now society deems that it would be evil to have someone drawn and quartered. Hanged, drawn and quartered - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> On the subject of Morality, moral and immoral are both defined by societies standards and personal choice and action.
> 
> ...


100% Agreed. roud:


----------



## Drake (Oct 31, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Actually, the first sentence made the same point in a different way. :crazy:


Can see it now that it has been pointed out. Thanks


----------



## Happy (Oct 10, 2008)

*MOST EVIL SCALE*

01 Those who kill in self-defense and do not show psychopathic tendencies (justifiable homicide) 
02 Jealous lovers who, though egocentric or immature, are not psychopathic (crime of passion)
03 Willing companions of killers: aberrant personality — probably impulse-ridden, with antisocial traits 
04 Kill in self-defense, but had been extremely provocative towards the victim 
05 Traumatized, desperate people who kill abusive relatives and others (like to support a drug habit) but lack significant traits. Genuinely remorseful. 
06 Impetuous, hotheaded murderers, yet without marked psychopathic features 
07 Highly narcissistic, not distinctly psychopathic people with a psychotic core who kill people close to them (jealousy an underlying motive) 
08 Non psychopathic people with smoldering rage who kill when rage is ignited
09 Jealous lovers with psychopathic features 
10 Killers of people who were "in the way" or who killed, for example, witnesses (egocentric but not distinctly psychopathic) 
11 Psychopathic killers of people "in the way" 
12 Power-hungry psychopaths who killed when they were "cornered" 
13 Psychopathic killers with inadequate, rage-filled personalities who "snapped" 
14 Ruthlessly self-centered psychopathic schemers 
15 Psychopathic "cold-blooded" spree or multiple murders 
16 Psychopaths committing multiple vicious acts 
17 Sexually perverse serial murderers, torture-murderers (among the males, rape is the primary motive with murder to hide the evidence; Systematic torture is not a primary factor) 
18 Torture-murderers with murder the primary motive 
19 Psychopaths driven to terrorism, subjugation, intimidation and rape, (short of murder) 
20 Torture murderers with torture as the primary motive but in psychotic personalities 
21 Psychopaths preoccupied with torture in the extreme, but not known to have committed murder 
22 Psychopathic torture-murderers, with torture their primary motive, sexual homicide


----------



## LeafStew (Oct 17, 2009)

Learned in one of my class that Morality is a personal thing so it differ from person to person. Ethic on the other hand is collective. There's only 1 ethic but different culture interpret it in different ways..


----------



## EvanR (Nov 28, 2009)

obviously not

Good, evil, moral and immoral do not exist as forces of nature in the way that gravity does. Most people (including me) choose to live as if their is such a thing as good/evil but those concepts do not exist independent of human thought. 

On the other hand good and evil do exist as chemicals in our brain, but I don't think that is what you meant when you asked the question.


----------



## EvanR (Nov 28, 2009)

Happy said:


> *MOST EVIL SCALE*
> 
> 01 Those who kill in self-defense and do not show psychopathic tendencies (justifiable homicide)
> 02 Jealous lovers who, though egocentric or immature, are not psychopathic (crime of passion)
> ...


Awesome! Did you make this up?


----------



## danicx (Dec 5, 2009)

^Ah, I love that show (no, he didn't make it up, it's some psychologist and it's for a TV show called Most Evil). The scale is incredibly arbitrary and gimmicky IMO, but there's still some very interesting material in the show.


Original topic: I voted "No" based on what I assume the poll is getting at, but morality does "exist" as a human concept. An evolved subconscious sense of morality is what allows humanity to progress cooperatively. I personally label myself amoral (not immoral), but I also recognize that certain human instincts will drive me to act for "moral" (or immoral) purposes, contextually.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

A male relative of mine was raped by an older male neighbor when he was a little boy. His mother used to send him over so the neighborcould 'babysit' him and he remembers the man walking him back home afterward, holding his hand... This happened many times and my relative thinks his mother may have known what was happening but sacrificed him for some reason. He has permanant physical damage. He recently went through a 'forum' or seminar in which they taught him that there is no such thing as evil! "There's no such thing as sin; it's just different _experiences_ and _choices_." 

What was done to him was evil and immoral. It doesn't matter if no one witnessed it, or if it agrees with a religious concept.

My relative has a lot of problems as you can imagine. How will he ever come to terms with the fact that he was tortured by both his mother and the child rapist if he can't call it evil? Because if it isn't evil, he has no right to feel wronged. It was just his neighbor's choice, and his 'experience.'


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Alchemical Romance said:


> So I was wondering. Please answer. What is good and what is evil? What is moral and what imoral. Of course I have my view but i'm interested in other opinions on the matter.


Good and Evil exist as subjective ideas. They do no exist in any objective sense. When someone says something is good and evil they are necessarily making a judgement from their subjective viewpoint. 

But I believe there are limits to these ideas. There is a general "ballpark" where these ideas often have free reign to be defined this way and that. There are only rare occasions whereby this limit is breached and this is usually in extreme cases, or in cases whereby the person's knowledge of the factors of their environment is sufficiently limited.



Lilsnowy said:


> My relative has a lot of problems as you can imagine. How will he ever come to terms with the fact that he was tortured by both his mother and the child rapist if he can't call it evil? Because if it isn't evil, he has no right to feel wronged. It was just his neighbor's choice, and his 'experience.'


Why does he have to encapsulate his experience into an arbitrary word to find resolution?
To give what he experienced a word that people bandy about all too often only trivializes his pain. The pain he feels is all he needs, he's already defined what happened in his mind.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

I agree *Coffee Grinder*, that he has all he needs in his pain to define the experience, but I think if he denies any wrong was done to him, to fit in with the ideas of the group he participated in, he invalidates his suffering. His mother died years ago and the man... who knows. He can't confront them now, but the harm that was done was very real and very evil. How can we forgive an offense if we can't acknowledge the offense occured? In court it's crucial for victims to be able to state the harm that was done to them. And as a ciminal, if I break into someone's business, or rape a woman, or slander someone, I'm being immoral and evil and there are consequences. 

I'm not afraid of labels to define a commonality here. If it's evil, call it evil. Independent of human thought, morality is not needed. But until all humans cease to exist, there will be human thought and morality. Animals do not do evil and have no need of morailty. However, they can be impacted by humans' immmorailty, such as animal cruelty. 

If you look at the ten commandments as an example, they are defining common acts that are considered evil by God. Courtrooms use them to define morality today because they are common experiences which harm people.

There's a whole movement of men who promote sexual relationships with little boys, and to their darkened way of thinking, sodomy of a child isn't evil. I'm not buying that there is no such thing as evil or immorality just because they are subjective.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

There is a difference between something that is horrible, monstrous and terrible...and something that is evil. I believe that there's a difference in what "thought baggage" it brings with it. I believe you can say that something wrong happened, that something terrible happened, but when you call something "evil", it become insurmountable. You bring allusions of the devil and things that go bump in the night. 

It depends on how someone reacts to a word really. If evil to you brings allusions of some unsurmountable force that terrorises people throughout their life then I think it's better for them to avoid it. While for me, calling something evil is to trivialise it, it's to label it with the same hysteria and short-sightedness as the people in the past who labelled left-handedness "evil". 

I think it's wrong for them to try to convince your relative that right and wrong do not exist. But I think it's ok that they try to discourage the use of the word "evil".


----------



## danicx (Dec 5, 2009)

Ok, I usually try to avoid these debates because they lead nowhere and exhaust me emotionally, but ...

I think it would be unwise and immature of any amoralist to try and influence believers in morality over to their side. Morals exist for a reason, which is exactly what you're illustrating Lilsnowy. We use them to implement justice, to unite in promoting kindness, and to make sense of acts that impact us in horrible ways. Systems of belief are all based on emotional needs. You may believe in morality because to think of the world otherwise would be devastating to you. People who believe in amorality have their own reasons too - myself, I think it's likely because I have a fear of fearing truth. Your friend is right to resent what happened to him and judge the person who's responsible; he cares for his own well-being and for the well-being of others, and that interest has been violated.



Lilsnowy said:


> How can we forgive an offense if we can't acknowledge the offense occured? In court it's crucial for victims to be able to state the harm that was done to them. And as a ciminal, if I break into someone's business, or rape a woman, or slander someone, I'm being immoral and evil and there are consequences.


I don't think you're understanding the argument. Someone who hurts another person is undoubtedly disrespectful, malevolent, antisocial, selfish, etc. They have undoubtedly caused suffering, and must face the consequences of a human justice system. No one is denying this. But no matter how much we despise them (and we're entitled to), it doesn't make them _"evil"_, because no act actually has value beyond what we place in it. One can accept this fact and still be opposed to acts of violence.

In short, _accept_ moral wrongdoings - no. Accept the human reasons which cause us to label them "immoral" - that's the essence of the argument.


----------



## The Psychonaut (Oct 29, 2009)

morality exists only as human ideas, and so long as we humans feel it is necessary to our society. one day the majority will be the Superman, and morality will be outdated...for morality was invented to protect the evil from the strong...and what use would that be to a world of Supermen...to whom strength is a prerequisite.

i voted NO btw, because they do not exist in the physical sense...and the physical world is all that should be taken into account, because it is all that can be proven.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

The question of the thread was whether good, moral, immoral or evil exists. We all seem to agree that they do exist, even as 'simply' human ideas. If the problem is with the word evil, that's a matter of opinion, as all things are. I don't have a problem using the word evil for something purposefully injurious to someone else. Ted Bundy was selfish, cold, coveting and boastful but what he did to people was _evil._ The acts we do reflect the inner world of morality. *WannaBgonzo,* the acts _are_ the physical proof that the concepts of good, evil, moral and immoral do exist. 

I have been immoral, I have been good. I've seen the devastating consequences of evil acts. We all have. If we couldn't make judgments about these things, the world would be an out-of-control, dark place. It's becoming more so every day because people are reluctant to judge anything as immoral at all. 

My opinion is that good, moral, immoral and evil exist: we just have different views of *what* is good, moral, immoral or evil.


----------



## danicx (Dec 5, 2009)

Disbelief in morality has nothing to do with evil acts being committed. The guys who flew a couple planes into the World trade center to kill tens of thousands of people had a pretty damn strong sense of morality.


----------



## perennialurker (Oct 1, 2009)

We should not confuse the idea of subjective ethics (which everyone has, despite what some may claim) and the belief in the existance of absolute moral truths of which we as limited beings are not likely able to fully comprehend. I am not omniscient so I have no means of proving this and no one has any way of disproving it.


----------



## JustMeAgain (Jan 2, 2010)

To me it's all just shades of grey, What i think is evil most likely won't match another person's preception of evil or good for that matter. Which brings to mind this special i watched on the history channel about the origin of angels and how they are interlinked between many religions

My point being is that stereotypically people think angels are good[the other angels], i beg to differ [besides lucifer lets not be witty and point out the obvious]. Referanceing the bible it doesn't really state that angels are good, it just says they obey and carry out the will of god. But whose to say god is good? In the end for me it ends up going back to how one perceives things

Even if most of us would agree that [for example] Child molestation is a vile crime the child molester might disagree.

Perceptions are different from person to person For me good and evil is a blurred line.

I have my own set of morals, i think murder is bad but the circumstances do matter.

Stealing = I don't really think it's evil just frustrating and annoying that lazy people wont get off their !#%$ and make a living.

Rape Sex cimes & that lot Horrible depravity! Honestly i just think that theirs no hope for child molesters Evil.

WMD's neutral,until people use them for bad things which is sort of their purpose, but it's like the saying "Gun's don't kill people stupid people with guns kill people"

Sorry for my lil' disorganized ramblings lol my mind has alot going on right now:tongue: Not really the religious type seems like a farce to me


----------



## Conjugated (Jan 7, 2010)

Quite simply no. They are modes of perception generated by the human condition and thus do not exist physically outside of our brains. Since they do not exist outside of a human interpretation, their values cannot be absolute and thus there is no real good, evil, immoral or moral. Only standards set by a particular society or person.


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

*What is good and what is evil? What is moral and what imoral.*
For me.. this entirely depends on the context. Laws, religions, custom, taboos.. they all regulate society and, if not created, work with the concepts. I won't say they don't exist; when something affects the world, and they very much do as they're so ingrained into people, they exist. 

For many good is _kindness_, playing nice with people, thinking of the society. It's just that the understanding of what consists of 'people' and 'society' might differs. If one kind to their own people by being 'not kind' (evil?) to others, would he be good? A hero or monster depends whether you're his friend or enemy. Put it into extremes and one might only be 'kind' to himself, and being 'evil' to everyone else, but is he truly evil that way?

When no one else think of him as good? 

So called villains, fictional or real, usually don't think of themselves as evil. They only do what they have to, to survive maybe, they do it for the people, they do it for their religions. People who brag how evil they are usually just emo, or attention-whoring.

Morality is easier. Morality is conforming to what's accepted as moral in society, for it's pure construct of their needs.

By the way, someone once, preparing for a debate, started by asking me "Do you think yourself as good?". Maybe expecting "Of course!" as an answer so he could proceed with his argument. He was visibly annoyed/ disturbed that I answered --honestly-- "I have no idea." (which happened to ruin his argument, apparently, maybe he was seeking to question my morality or something)


----------



## fractaloverlap (Mar 30, 2009)

Vanitas said:


> *What is good and what is evil? What is moral and what imoral.*
> For me.. this entirely depends on the context. Laws, religions, custom, taboos.. they all regulate society and, if not created, work with the concepts. I won't say they don't exist; when something affects the world, and they very much do as they're so ingrained into people, they exist.
> 
> For many good is _kindness_, playing nice with people, thinking of the society. It's just that the understanding of what consists of 'people' and 'society' might differs. If one kind to their own people by being 'not kind' (evil?) to others, would he be good? A hero or monster depends whether you're his friend or enemy. Put it into extremes and one might only be 'kind' to himself, and being 'evil' to everyone else, but is he truly evil that way?
> ...


That is quite interesting. Do people generally think of themselves as "good" in a general way? Like you, I would have to give that thought before answering.


----------

