Without good would there be evil?

so outside of human understanding and moralizing name one thing that is inherently good and one that is inherently evil. I'm not asking for a list this time.

 

Any creature that fulfills its nature is doing good. A creature that is unable to fulfill its nature results in an evil, or rather, that inability is an evil unto itself.

A squirrel forages and finds food and stores it away - good.

Entire species being wiped out from a large rock from space - evil. In this instance you have a natural disaster that unintelligent life cannot prepare for, and as a result can no longer fulfill their nature, which as stated earlier, would be classified as an evil. It is the manner in which these creatures would be prevented from doing good is, by definition, an evil. (A lack of a good that should be present)

 

I believe your examples are of objective reality as seen subjectively by you. Value placed on them comes from human understanding--therefore =subjectively human.

 

And yet when this entire species being the dinosaurs was possibly wiped out from a large rock from space it had a result of giving mammals the chance to gain a slow but steady dominance on Earth. Not evil. Nature always has a reason for things happening the way they do. And yes a giant rock from space is still a part of nature. Nature doesn't work in terms of good or evil even you must acknowledge this. Nature works as doing things, regardless of moral ideals, as a means to an end. If one animal is uncapable of surviving because of an incapability to do what they need to to survive another animal will then be fed as a result of that incapability. Or to a greater extreme that creature's decendants will evolve to overcome said incapability. This process is not evil. It is simply natural.

 

The only way to understand objective reality is by human understanding; while all people come from a subjective place - their own minds and perspective - through reason one can arrive at objectivity.

 

Indeed, the rise of mammals was good, though this does not mean or logically imply that the preceding event - the deaths of millions of others - was not evil.

Nature is capable of evil inasmuch as it is capable of good. Many human beings will easily admit they believe it is justifiable to commit an evil in order to obtain a future good. Nature does this automatically every day.

 

(To post 45)Somewhat. The way I view objective reality is that which IS--not what we think what is. Yes--the only way to understand anything is thru human reasoning otherwise there would ONLY be objective reality,whether we ever existed or not. If there were never any humans--would anything else exist? Objective reality would determine that,independant of us/not us.

 

I did not say that the rise of mammals was good my friend. I simply said it was. From death comes life from life death. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say about nature and good or evil. The reason that nature automatically does things each moment of each day to set up a future for it's charges is because it must. This has nothing to do with good or evil. These ideals don't even come into the equation.

 

To understand that which IS we must first think what it is. Gravity always was, but we did not understand the objective reality of what it until Sir Isaac Newton graced us with his brilliance. Though I agree with the rest of your sentiment quite thoroughly - objective reality will exist whether or not we humans deign to consider it.

 

If evil can be, it may exist in objects of their manufacturing. But We buy It. So the Good is presumed needed for their profit; that already is evil unless we understand something else in It for the good. The good may not exist anyway, but the evil lurked.

What I'm saying is that US knows no good for the evil it incurred. Somehow we believe in Them. They are good for great inventions like the wheel; like the computer: but objectively the them is always a delusion of the goodness of progress. They must make US bitter and violated for the Good to arise again.

 

Good thread--gotsta pick up the little grand daughter---see you.

 

I realize that, I am saying it was good.

It has everything to do with good and evil, for all the reasons I've previously mentioned. Good and evil are qualities that exist - animals, plants, nature, all things, whether sapient or not, intentionally or not, commit actions that can be qualified in this fashion. You continue to think of good and evil as strictly things which can only exist if a sapient being is culpable for them, and/or able to judge them. I would say you fail to grasp what good and evil actually are - particularly the difference between moral evil and natural evil.

 

Cya scratcho. Good talking to ya.

To ALL: Sorry, double post up there. My bad.

 

I don't quite agree with you on what you think I fail to grasp. I think that you look more at the world from a humanistic view which would mean that you categorize things based completly on human understanding whereas I look more at reality from a universal view. What happens happens because it must not because it can. To me the concepts of good and evil have no logical place in the natural order of things.

 

On that note I think we've basically agreed to disagree. A fine discussion Indy, thoroughly enjoyable.

 

Very impressive reasoning Meagain. I'm not 100% sure if you were vouching for or against the existance of good and evil. It sounded like an argument against or at least against human idealogies of good and evil but either way it was quite impressive. Thank you for your input

 

The scale from which we measure good and evil does not have the benefit of a reliable metric, i.e. it does not exist in reality but only in the imagination. It is always a sliding scale of light and dark depending on disposition and circumstance.

The reason that good and evil do not achieve balance is that they are a product of a split mind which always weighs heavy in the moment. The perception of good and evil represents a picture of a mind at war with itself and yet the prospective combatants never actually meet but are always entertained separately, that is they never shake hands.

 

There is something we can say of reality, a measure by which we can compare our projections.

Reality is non-local, nor is it remote.

We may know things but something is not everything. We may know but there is always more to learn.