Without good would there be evil?

I view good and evil as things that people use to help them label things. So yes you are right about my theory on these two words. As an example why I believe they are only terms I'll give you this. A cannibal who has spent his or her whole life eating other people would not see this act as wrong or right good or evil. But a "educated man" who came to live with a tribe of cannibals for what ever reason would label the act of consuming another human as evil or at least as wrong. In reality the concept of good and evil at least to me is nothing more than labels assigned by people to help them moralize the world.

To me the expression of Good and Evil goes hand in hand with the reality of Good and Evil. In nature there is no such distinction between right and wrong. A wolf mother doesn't debate with herself on wether it is wrong or right to kill a deer to feed her and her pups. She just does. The reality of Good and Evil is only concious in human minds and human expressions. This is what sets us apart from the rest of known creation.

 

The perception of good and evil is fostered by our creature hood, that is we are warm blooded. We have a temperate zone or a level of intensity that we function best at. Both too warm and too cool have a potential of being considered, evil. The actual scale or spectrum of experience is a single one ranging from absolute zero to the speed of light. Not a dual spectrum of good and evil.

 

Post 6 makes it clear.

 

I figured the cannibal example would come up. But whereas you think this example is a proof for relativism, I think it is quite the opposite. The fact that murdering one's own species in order to eat them is found in some species (rarely) and has even been found in some human societies (even rarer), the scarcity of these occasions, to me, only highlight that such things are not only generally considered evil, but that the recognition that the murder and devouring ones own species is recognized as being undeniably evil. Also, I think it is a poor choice of an example because most people, educated or otherwise, would agree that there are certain circumstances where pure cannibalism would not be an evil - but rather a necessity. (Such as certain instances where survivors of catastrophe ate those bodies of the already deceased in order to survive). It is only in the action of murder for the purposes of cannibalism among humans that we may recognize the inarguable evil of the behavior; the objective reality behind this evil is why it is so rare to find it ingrained in human society and behavior.

We can know the basics of good and evil by looking throughout different cultures and throughout human history. When we look at the medieval era, we see societies of people where it seems they are so different than us, that it is difficult to believe they come from the same civilization we do. It is by studying peoples such as this where we find not only common ground in our humanity, but in those things which are intangible - the recognition of those actions that are objectively 'good' and objectively 'evil'.

I agree that recognizing good and evil separates us from nature, but I do not believe this speaks to the relative quality of good and evil. As I've stated earlier in the discussion (or was it a different discussion?) animals do not have the capacity to recognize a great many things that humans can. This, once again, has little to do with whether or not those things humans recognize are 'real', just that humans have a higher capacity for understanding certain concepts and realities. When Michael Faraday came to understand electro magnetic induction, he was the first creature to do so. Did it previously not exist prior to Michael Faraday? Would it not exist today? Of course it would. And of course animals, as we know them, have absolutely no ability to dwell on electro magnetic induction. It is a concept as real as stone and mortar, but as incomprehensible to a cat as morality. No analogy is perfect, but I do hope this at least makes my position salient to you.

 

If a 30 year old man were to marry a 12 year old girl would you consider this evil?

 

Unacceptable in our society? Yes. But objectively evil? No.

 

If you would be so kind as to indulge me what do you consider objectively evil?

 

The type of cannibalism I described in post #24. To quote myself:
"It is only in the action of murder for the purposes of cannibalism among humans that we may recognize the inarguable evil of the behavior; the objective reality behind this evil is why it is so rare to find it ingrained in human society and behavior. "

 

I was asking for a list not just a single statement.

 

Hardly. You miss the point that headhunters did not do so out of necessity, but as a sacrament. Consider the mainstream Mexican cultures of human sacrifice.

You may only find attitudes about. There is no universal morality nor could there be, as helpful is a matter of timing.

 

My apologies, I have not compiled such a list. Doing so would require a great deal of effort because as I've stated coming to understand that which is objectively evil requires a great deal of study. I'm also certain that any list I provided would be flawed - myself being neither philosopher nor historian beyond the amateur level.

 

You misunderstand what I wrote. I did not say that those cultures who were cannibals do so out of necessity, in fact I implied the opposite. In fact the only occasions where I referred to necessity were those people in catastrophic situations where human corpses were the only available food source. Pardon me, I'm a little miffed at the fact it doesn't seem you read my post very carefully or took time to understand it before dismissing it.

 

You are welcome to your discomfort. I apologize for the specific of "they do so by necessity". However I do not think I misunderstood your post at large. I gave you the example of mainstream Mexican culture of human sacrifice. The idea is not rare. Millions of people this very day consider it essential to eat the body of christ and that a man be sacrificed so that we can be all well with god.

 

Since you don't have a list of what you percieve to be inherently evil I'll go back to our previous statements on evil and then ask a single question of you. You believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that good and evil is a real thing, and that it exists without humanity. I believe that good and evil are only labels that mankind uses to describe the idealogy of morality.

The question is without man having ever been created, having ever set foot upon this planet would good and evil exist?

 

Neither of these examples prove that cannibalism is commonplace, or that it isn't rare. Furthermore, your latter example does not adhere to the sort of cannablism I am referring to. To intentionally murder a human being in order to eat him. Transubstatiation is the belief of making present the Paschal Mystery (which includes the murder of Jesus, who according the theology, gave himself literally to his apostles) and eating his body under the accidents of bread. One of the big important differences between transubstatiation and the sort of cannibalism I refer to is that Jesus gave himself in that form before he was even murdered, and to the people who didn't murder him.

As I've stated before, I'm not saying all cannibalism is objectively evil, only a very specific type. Which is, in fact, rare when considered over the scope of human history. There are many examples of it, but they are clearly the exception, and quite far from the rule.

 

Good and evil can exist without each other, it's not contrast that makes them what they are. And even so, without good there can be things that are NOT evil, so yes, evil would exist.

 

I didn't mean to get sidetracked on the point of cannibalism. My point there is no rule.
If I understand you correctly you argue for the existence of objective evil, or conversely good. Helpful is a matter of timing as you yourself point out that cannibalism can be circumstantially, okay.

I don't think human beings play by different rules than all other creation, but we can believe we have "special qualities". Believing in special qualities we believe in special responsibilities but we are truly constrained by the self organizing principle of life. It is good to eat, it is not good, circumstantially, to starve. However starving can be circumstantially good for some, for those who eat the starved body as well as for those who do not eat for procreation or recreational purposes.

 

Yes, as I've implied I believe good and evil exist independently of humanity.

 

Good and evil may not matter. What offends our sensibilities matters, until fear of a deity and the rules invoked by said deity are presented. That is the measure by which we judge the qualities of good and evil. They are labels from the human construct, as is pretty much all else we comprehend. Objective reality owes no one.

Again ,I'll refer to the Dopes post 6.

 

The way you sort of parse through the differences between eating, not eating and circumstances is precisely one reason I don't feel comfortable providing a list as Indy requested. It's complex and very easy to make mistakes when looking at specific examples versus general behavior, which is why I appreciate what you said at the end there.