I hear this logic: if you've done nothing bad, you've nothing to worry abt: Just how do you prove a negative?

Question

When I ask "how do prove a negative?" I'm asking how do you prove that you have done nothing at all. What can you point to as proof or evidence that you have done nothing, and for the sake of the Q assume that it is a fact that you did nothing at all. This is a point of logic!

BTW, this is not a religious Q about religious based ethics. It was cleary asked in the Philosophy subcategory. The word "bad" was used instead of "illegal" because the vaguer "bad" enabled me to fit my Q in the Q box! Had I used illegal I would have had to compress the words and someone would have griped.

Answer 1

you don't have to prove it. just not worry about it

Answer 2

Well I believed in this logic until one fine day, my experience proved me wrong. Then I learned that what looks like a bad experience, is actually a blessing in disguise. I found that God was actually helping me to cope with what was to come up next. The situation was meant to be a punishment for me for something that people thought I did wrong. So there I was, thrown out of college only to have a nice serene time at home when my panic disorder came up. I just know that I would have broke down if I was still in college.

Answer 3

I see that logic in action constantly. The truth, however, is that we do not live in a vacuum, so something very "innocent" may end up having very bad consequences for someone else...something that maybe we did not anticipate. Also? Are we individuals actually great or mighty enough, personally, to even be ABLE to judge what is "good," or "bad?" The answer to that is a resounding NO! I don't think that we are capable of PROVING a negative, as you had asked, simply because of our mere human nature. Only God Himself is pure enough and filled with enough love and truth to know what a "negative" is...that's why we need Him! His Word provides us with solid knowledge - it is a "lamp unto [our] feet." Without Him we are so lost - in many ways. Morality is much larger than "good and bad." Your question implicates you have a little understanding of that. If you have God, follow Him. If you do not have God, seek Him. If you do not wish to seek Him, you choose to bumble through life by default. God Bless.

Answer 4

A "wrong doing" is determined, surely, by what effect the "wrong doing" has on another.
Therefore to prove a negative one must look at the effect on the other parties and weigh up the effect. Depending on these, one can decide which grade of "wrong doing" it is, if at all.
It may turn out that no-one else was effected or at least did not care, so even if it was technically morally wrong, surely we do not class it as so.
To then balance the theory out, one has to look at the cause of the "wrong doing". Was the cause of the "wrong doing" fit for the outcome?

Answer 5

Good and bad are only ratings by comparison ! Human being is gifted with intelligence to decide what is appropriate in the situation. Experience might teach to a large extent. They say 'experience it the best teacher', but you see, it gives a Test first , and the lessons come only next ! So better try to observe the experience of others and learn faster, to reduce learning the 'hard way' each time !

Answer 6

In traditional ethics there were two ways that we coulc fail being people of virtue. The one was to do something bad. The other was to fail to do something good. One is an act of committing an immoral action. The other is the ommission of a positive act of love and kindness which is an ethical duty. One can avoid committing an evil action. But if they fail to actively seek to do good to others when it is there power to do so, they are not living a life of virtue.