The Student Room Group

is evil really necessary ?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by da_nolo
What about things that cause harm to others?
What about things that are generally dishonest and generate into a habit or continuous action. Like stealing.


As someone who has just been a victim of theft yesterday, I would say it's obvious that to the one who stole my money it was obviously good for him... I'm not sure what your point is, it's quite apparent that actions that harm others (which by the way could be with good intentions) are not "objectively" bad. It's always going to be subjective.
Original post by dozyrosie
Have you any proof of this ridiculous statement, If it is from your book of mythology, then I must point out that your god is the epitome of evil. The absence of god is a blessing, and once achieved frees the mind for better things.


Also God is supposed to be omnipresent so I'm not sure how it's possible for there to be an absence of God, unless God simply doesn't exist or isn't quite godly.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Also God is supposed to be omnipresent so I'm not sure how it's possible for there to be an absence of God, unless God simply doesn't exist or isn't quite godly.


This seems a good bet. The definitions of god are given by those who believe in the said god, before the creation of the Abrahamic god, when there were plenty of gods they weren't defined that'a'way.
Original post by Trill
It is evil is necessary. How would you define good if there is no evil to compare it to? How could you determine the levels of bad, if there is no evil.

There is not light, without darkness.


J L Mackie argues that this is not true. He argues that if man was created wholly good, he could still essentially possess the free will to choose between several different good actions. God did not have to make man susceptible to evil in order to give them freewill.

There are different shades of light. You can have a dim light or you could have a bright light. So it is a false dichotomy to assume there are only two position, light and dark. Likewise, you have good actions, even better actions, and so on. So one can differentiate between two or three different actions, and conclude that one action is better than the other.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Little Toy Gun
As someone who has just been a victim of theft yesterday, I would say it's obvious that to the one who stole my money it was obviously good for him... I'm not sure what your point is, it's quite apparent that actions that harm others (which by the way could be with good intentions) are not "objectively" bad. It's always going to be subjective.


Something being of benefit does not mean it is inherently good. Many who go to prison or even those who do not may recognize what they are doing is bad. Likewise, I am sure that individual may take your stance on the situation or at least share the belief, "I do not like someone stealing from me."

Now I wish I could have found the proper citing, but could not. In philosophy there is the thought that knowledge (some or all) exist prior to our existence/birth and we must think in order to retain that knowledge.

We can see this in animals and our selves when going into that "flight or fight" mode in which our bodies naturally react. If morality would be objective, there would be a source and I do think it to be within ourselves in some manner.

Studies have been done that expressed a glance of morals within children as young as 1. A news agency reported on one of these studies, going into what morality is. This report may be viewed on youtube.

"A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life." New York Times

Though acts among children differ, we can examine why people act the way they do. Often times when a person (including kids) act as they do, there is a goal. Sometimes subconscious. "Acting out" is sometimes a "cry for help."

Stealing may be a means to an end - in which in many acts that are immoral, we have to justify ourselves until we learn to accept what we do. Your thief may need to feed their family, get high, or complete some goal that to them gets them over that hump of "I am doing something I should not." It is a learning curve to over come our own conscious.

I have committed immoral acts and every time I know there is something wrong. This has been true even in situations in which I had never been in before, have been told of, nor known what they outcome would be. Anyone else experienced this?

Doing evil/bad things takes time to learn. Doing good things takes courage.

Concept of Morality

Also God is supposed to be omnipresent so I'm not sure how it's possible for there to be an absence of God, unless God simply doesn't exist or isn't quite godly.
The concept of "absence of God" is to describe a being of whom chooses to disobey or ignores God. This is why we interpret acts as being evil or persons. Persons choose to do things against God or an act itself was of sin.

However, when is God expressed as omnipresent?
(edited 7 years ago)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

now get outta ma pub
Original post by Retired_Messiah


Spoiler


Above spoiler contains quoted paragraphs from provided link.

I find it interesting how someone may have no moral objection to a thing - no belief or desire to say something is wrong but still act on our own natural resistance to immoral and wrong acts. Such disgust being felt is an emotional response to what our conscious tells us. Unfortunate how that term (disgust) is misused by some, however.

I don't quite understand how anyone could have a moral judgment if there are no morality to judge. I guess in nihilism, the definition of "moral" is changed to an emotional response only?
Original post by da_nolo

Spoiler

Above spoiler contains quoted paragraphs from provided link.

I find it interesting how someone may have no moral objection to a thing - no belief or desire to say something is wrong but still act on our own natural resistance to immoral and wrong acts. Such disgust being felt is an emotional response to what our conscious tells us. Unfortunate how that term (disgust) is misused by some, however.

I don't quite understand how anyone could have a moral judgment if there are no morality to judge. I guess in nihilism, the definition of "moral" is changed to an emotional response only?


Even moral nihlists have a moral code, the point is morality is not objective, we decide on morality because morality is a construct.
I think people confuse morality with law. Law is what the gods/kings/powers that be, give us, morality is what we assume is right.
Yea but you see, in your analogy, if there was no evil at all, we would learn to embrace each other without the need for a tragedy.
Original post by dozyrosie
I think people confuse morality with law. Law is what the gods/kings/powers that be, give us, morality is what we assume is right.

Why would anyone assume it to be right?
How ironic..

Yesterday coincidentally, I read on Facebook that someone said that evil is done by people with good intentions.

It could mean people with good intentions don't use the softer 'good' way of doing things..but the other option.
Reply 52
Avatar for pillock
pillock
Original post by JeremyOU
you cannot use evil to do good.
there is no such thing as a 'necessary' evil.
evil/good is not really a moral issue, so its not a question of viewpoint.
Hitler was a evil scum-bag who deserves to rot in hell for eternity for what he did.


Whether something is evil or not is subjective. If you cant see this then you think with emotion and not logic.
Original post by pillock
Whether something is evil or not is subjective. If you cant see this then you think with emotion and not logic.


How might you, or anyone else here, explain how or why this is all subjective?

Also, your statement is backwards. to say that a thing is subjective describes it to be emotionally based. you like an "act" because it stimulates you emotionally. you dislike something because it stimulates a bad emotion.
For anyone to have a "moral code" they must view something to be right or wrong. If this is based on what we like, concept of right and wrong deteriorates as one would not be able to explain their own conscious.

For morality to be objective it would allow us to maintain some understanding of right and wrong.
Good and evil are subjective but what most class as "evil" can be necessary
Original post by AperfectBalance
Good and evil are subjective but what most class as "evil" can be necessary


How or why is it subjective?

May you present example for necessary evil?
Original post by dozyrosie
This concept of 'evil and good' is obviously a religious one (at least Abrahamic religions) and denies evolution. If 'evil and/or good exist then why are humans the only ones to be blessed/affected by them?


That ts an excellent question
Original post by da_nolo
How or why is it subjective?

May you present example for necessary evil?


What might be evil to you might be good to another or vice versa.



Necessary evil.

allying with Stalin during ww2 than hitler both evil people that did evil things but we picked the lesser of two evils in my eyes.
Original post by AperfectBalance
What might be evil to you might be good to another or vice versa.
That does not depict subjectivity but a person's inability to acknowledge or accept an objective concept.

Many things I have view points on may be correct or incorrect as well.

allying with Stalin during ww2 than hitler both evil people that did evil things but we picked the lesser of two evils in my eyes.
The dynamics behind the cold war and world war two is very complex. However, the "evil" behind these men were not known until after war had started (hitler) or after records were revealed (stalin). Most historical articles I have read depict information from both Germany and Russia as being behind a curtain during these times.

Otherwise, Germany was actively attacking Western European countries (France, Britain, etc.) where as Russia was not. "Axis Powers" launched the first attack against the world, in which all who were attacked decided to work together.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you