good and evil, what is greater?

[I'm A Banana]

Illogical. This and similar lines of thinking (i.e., "There is no universally accepted definition of evil" sorts of sentiments) conflate opinion with fact. The truth of X is not dependent on what people's opinions pro or contra X happen to be at any particular moment. If X is true, then X remains true even if the whole world objects. Likewise, if X is false, then arguments to the contrary are sheer sophistry.

Not as much as you think....what it Truth really is dependant upon people's perceptions of it? What if, the moment you or anybody else stops precieving something, it ceases to be? What if the Truth of something is dependant upon how many people believe it, for instance?

In order to debate the existence of something you must first determine how things exist, and how we *know* it. This involves epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

 

[Mark Chance]

Not as much as you think....what it Truth really is dependant upon people's perceptions of it? What if, the moment you or anybody else stops precieving something, it ceases to be? What if the Truth of something is dependant upon how many people believe it, for instance?

In order to debate the existence of something you must first determine how things exist, and how we *know* it. This involves epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

Your scenario is an interesting thought experiment, but it has no relation to things as they really are. The moment a thing or a truth ceases to be perceived, it does not cease to be. That is the fact, or (at least) it is safely claimed to be the fact since no one can demonstrate otherwise.

People who honestly believe otherwise (that things that are real are not real in and of themselves) have an annoying tendency to be either sociopaths or university professors.

Logically, by your argument, all seekers of truth will arrive (and, historically, have arrived) at the same destination, regardless of who they were and from what culture they originated.

Your assertion assumes without demonstration that all religious and/or moral truths can be arrived at solely through the use of human reason. Most religious traditions reject this assumption. If it is posited that some religious/moral truths can be arrived through the use of human reason, but that others require the use of human reason in conjunction with something else (i.e., divine revelation, faith, et cetera), then variations in the various dogmas and moral conclusions of different religions is entirely explicable.

Your assertion also assumes without demonstration that all truth must be arrived at in this lifetime. This is also an assumption that most religious traditions reject. Most religious traditions instead say, basically, that all who honestly and faithfully seek truth will find truth...in this life or the next.

What's more, it can be amply demonstrated that in terms of moral conclusions, there is an amazing, indeed universal, set of conclusions that flow from religious inquiry. There are variations, to be sure, but those variations are often due to category errors.

For example, "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" is a philosophical statement based on a specific religion's moral conclusions (but is also a claim is made by every major world religion, albeit in different words). Unfortunately, in the 18th century, even the brightest often made category errors about who were "men." For reasons based on culture rather than clear and honest thinking, certain groups who are quite obviously "men" were excluded: women, Africans, Jews, Catholics, et cetera.

 

[Mercule]

Too many people - especially online - don't know how to have a polite conversation about their beliefs.

Agreed. Ranting about FR vs GH or how much TWF Rangers suck is all fine (and fun, IMHO), but certain topics (politics & religion, esp) should either be discussed rationally, or not at all. Having a degree in Political Science and a minor in Philosophy, I love a good discussion quite a bit, but they are hard to find. Let us not ruin this one by crossing the line.

Anyway, my thoughts on the matter:

Good is stronger than evil, but it is harder to do. Good involves the contradictory ideas of 1) submitting to a force/philosophy/idea that is larger than yourself and, 2) recognizing each person's individuality and free will.

Good requires the submission because you must consider people outside yourself. Some religions may include submitting to a deity or accepting that said deity may be wiser than you are, too, but that's over the line and not required for my point.

By placing your focus on other people and granting them value/respect, you must confir onto their opinions and beliefs some respect as well. That means you must respect them enough to let them be something other than good. Things like the Inquisition did not follow this principle and were not good (not that "Inquisition != Good" is a revelation to anyone).

IMHO, this is where a lot of people who believe themselves to be good err. They try to prove how good they are by prejudising, in some form, against those they consider less good (I hesitate to say evil). This is especially noticible in religions because every religion that I'm familiar with claims that their deity(s) are "good". *large snippage to avoid thread closure*

 

[kirinke]

from the PH
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's idenity. It is not a straight-jacket for restricting your character.

GOOD characters and creatures protect innocent life.
good implies altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

EVIL characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. Evil implies hurting, opressing and killing others. IE evil has no compassion.

Evil is generally self destructive because it doesn't care about anything other than itself. It will cheerfully screw you over then your neighbors.

Good is well good.

the reason why good and evil are in cosmic balance is because evil is always trying to destroy good and good is not having any of it.

 

[diaglo]

if i look at evil and equate it with hate, i always think just how lucky i am.

i am a visual person. so someone who is willing to show their hate/evil. gives me a true image. now i have a point of reference. and all i can do is show my love.

for me, there must be hate/evil for love/good to exist.

i love someone willing to do that for me.

 

[kirinke]

whoot
Diaglo must be a follower of Master Yoda.
But George Lucas had it right in that regard.
Evil and hatred (IE fear) go hand in hand. When fear takes hold, so does all the negative things evil feeds on.

Good and love or at least compassion go hand in hand.
And evil takes alot more work than good.

 

[Mark Chance]

Evil and hatred (IE fear) go hand in hand. When fear takes hold, so does all the negative things evil feeds on.

Good and love or at least compassion go hand in hand.
And evil takes alot more work than good.

Hate and fear are not necessarily synonymous. I fear wasps, but I do not hate them, for example. It is also quite possible to hate what is evil and not fear it. Many have argued that, in fact, it is a moral obligation to hate what is evil.

Compassion divorced from genuine goodwill results in cruelty. Nietzche saw this quite clearly. Remember the phrase: "Killing with kindness."

And evil is easy. Often, all it takes to do evil is do the easiest thing or do nothing at all. It is good that is hard. That's why there are so few saints.

 

[Malcolm]

Your scenario is an interesting thought experiment, but it has no relation to things as they really are. The moment a thing or a truth ceases to be perceived, it does not cease to be. That is the fact, or (at least) it is safely claimed to be the fact since no one can demonstrate otherwise.

People who honestly believe otherwise (that things that are real are not real in and of themselves) have an annoying tendency to be either sociopaths or university professors.

What KM is referring to (if I understand the thought correctly) is indeed true and is an accepted part of physics. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle and his latter works address that the state of an object is affected by the observer of the object and his/her perceptions. In a universe ruled by probability and possibility (usually refered to oddly as Space and Time) there exists an equally valid approach to any matter in which "truth" is insisted upon.

Also from an elementary approach of both Physics (quanta being further subdivided ad nauseum and interchangibly both energy and matter) and Vedic thought (life is illusion, reality/matter are mutable and inherent truth is plausible at best), which have influenced almost all other forms of Western and Eastern religious, spiritual, and moralistic patterns, it is an agreed upon notion that "T"ruth is non-existant as far as humans can explain rationally. Experience, yes. Explain coherently, no. Ineffiable continues to be part of our vocabulary for such a reason.
As to the statements of "various", "all", and "many" religions viewing or stating some of the things you state: source please. As a student (and yes once or twice a professor) of Religion I'd disagree with these statements and the way you presented them in a "funneling toward the truth" manner. If there was as much agreement and similarity behind the world's religions and dogma as you state (and I wish there was when it comes to behing peaceful to our fellow humans) then there would be a good deal less violence and hatred in the world. While I agree that there are "t"ruths that they all point to which have similar messages, the various different interpretations of them is very very human, and very wide-spread.

Oh, and for Good vs. Evil. Neither.
Cheese.
for as the Preacher-Box says "Behold! The Power of Cheese!"

 

[kirinke]

Hate and fear are not necessarily synonymous. I fear wasps, but I do not hate them, for example. It is also quite possible to hate what is evil and not fear it. Many have argued that, in fact, it is a moral obligation to hate what is evil.

Compassion divorced from genuine goodwill results in cruelty. Nietzche saw this quite clearly. Remember the phrase: "Killing with kindness."

And evil is easy. Often, all it takes to do evil is do the easiest thing or do nothing at all. It is good that is hard. That's why there are so few saints.

whoops. i stand corrected.
*makes a bow.

lol. how can you kill with kindness? Death is the ultimate neutral character. It doesn't care. Period.

it also depends on what you call easy. I have a conscious the size of a maxi-bus. With a nail-studded +5 two-by-four vs stupidity, in which it cheerfully thwaps upside my head everytime i do something even remotely evil. Just call me the hungry-tiger. lol

 

[MerakSpielman]

there was as much agreement and similarity behind the world's religions and dogma as you state (and I wish there was when it comes to behing peaceful to our fellow humans) then there would be a good deal less violence and hatred in the world.

What most of the world's major religions seem to have in common is a founder (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Confucious, Lao-Tzu) who described a way for people to live in peace and harmony. The methods and beliefs were not the same but the sought-after end result of people being nice to each other and living in a harmonious world, on the other hand, were. Most religious founders seem to have been overcome by the horrors of their world, injustices of their government, and the downfall of the belief system that failed to prevent them.

As an ex-professor of religion, I'm sure you've asked your students those annoying questions like "What is Religion" and "What is the purpose of Religion." Regardless of dogma or beliefs, there are certain unifying characteristics that all religions share. These simularities tend to not be enough to get them all to work together harmoniously all the time, but they're close enough to where people can exist in "Freedom of Religion" countries without constantly trying to kill their unbelieving coworkers and neighbors.