Is there any objective basis for "good" and "evil"? Or is it just based on what we think is right?

Question

In our lives and over the course of history, people are tagged as heroes and villians. But it seems to me that the villians have just as much belief in the superiority of their convictions as the heroes. Its like everybody thinks their good or right and that those who have a different conception of good and right are labled as evil or wrong, which makes the lables kinda meaningless. What do you think?

Answer 1

'Evil' is necessary for 'good' to exist, just as 'sad' is necessary for 'happy' to exist. What is 'good' and 'evil' are nothing more then popular opinion. Remember, if the insane were the majority, we'd be the ones in the institutions.

Answer 2

Objective definitions of good and evil exist, but they're not particuarly satisfying. In generally, "evil" are those actions which deal undo harm upon another person while benefiting the actor. But the question is "what is undo." There's no real way to say undo objectively, so you likely have to just say evil is any selfish action. But then everyone's CONSTANTLY evil. Which is fine if you realize that the meaning of the word has lost a lot of it's impact.

Stories of good and evil tend to be about conflict of interests. In a lot of cases, it's about the "Evil" force which has a selfish desire that hurts the protagonist (traditionally a relatively good person) and a great number of other innocents. If this weren't the case, then the antagonist wouldn't be seen so much as a villian so much as just an opponent. Good is those things people do in order to benefit others regardless of benefit to ones self. Those things that benefit others AND ones self aren't good, they're just neutral. And that's just fine, people should be as neutral as possible by that reasoning. The hero is the person that wants to help everyone.

Of course, in Greek Mythology, the hero wasn't "good". He was usually very proud and self-centered, so the hero was more of a "I'm the king of the hill you mutha !@#$ers" and people idolized that thinking style. Different times different priorities.

Answer 3

It's based on our own individual moral compass, in my opinion. Take Pol Pot, for instance. He definitely had a strong belief in the superiority of his convictions, as you said, yet he massacred 2 million people (as did Hitler and various other fascist leaders). Still, there were people who viewed him as "good" and not "evil." To answer your question: No, I don't think there is an objective basis, because it's so individualized that there is no way to determine a "norm."

Answer 4

Having belief in your convictions does not make you right or good. Your intended results and how you go about getting them are what can easily be classified as good or evil.

You are "good" when you treat people the way you expect to be treated and don't hurt others - physically, financially, emotionally, etc. You are "evil" when you only care about what's best for you and don't care who you harm to get what you want. You are "evil" when you'll lie, cheat, and steal, and harm others in order to make them behave the way that you think they should when those others are not hurting anyone or anything.

A good example is religious zealots. They think that their mission is to make everyone live by their religious rules like you can't eat pork, or you must worship our God in our way. You can try to persuade people with words (not evil), but not violence (evil).

Answer 5

The objective basis is the moral code of society and religion...

We all also have a personal moral code that prompts us as to what is right and what is wrong...

keep in mind that there are mental health issues that cause people to act a certain way... Antisocial personality disorder is responsible for the most severe crimes such as murder for example... Another example is Narcissism that causes people to think that they are all that matters in the world and everyone should live to serve them...

Answer 6

- A good person works for the general welfare, and their own, but not at the risk of hurting others.
- An evil person works for the welfare of themselves, and their circle of friends, at the expense of others.

Superman is a hero who tries to save people, but he has a dark side. Braniac is a machine whose goal is to gather all the knowledge from a planet and destroy that planet. Thus making his knowledge, of that planet and culture, rare and complete. When Superman fights him he doesn't pull his punches, even though Braniac is a machine intelligence; and could be called alive. It is for the greater good that Superman defeat him, but he would like to destroy Brainac and that feeling can be considered wrong or evil. Of course overall Superman is much more good than evil. This is a simplistic example, but it general it gives the guidelines that you can apply. When a police officer helps to protect people he is good; he is working for the general welfare, and his own (his salary). But, if such a police officer starts to take bribes then he is advancing his own welfare at the expense of others. He may not know who he is hurting, but it has to be an illegal activity or someone would not be bribing him to “look the other way.” By definition an illegal act is one that harms society in some way. No one would commit a crime for no reason; their reasons may be trivial

The definition of evil is simpler; anyone that hurts another to advance their own welfare, or the welfare of their friends. Ken Lay was found guilty of several crimes; basically he improved his welfare, and the welfare of his friends, by cheating and stealing from his employees. A killer has a motive to commit murder. It could range from money to hatred, or to self-gratification. A paid assassin kills a person for the money, rarely is their any feeling involved. The fact that he is committing an evil act is pretty clear. A mother could kill her husband when she finds out that he is abusing their children. This is an evil act because she is helping herself and her family at the expense of her husband. Many people would consider this justifiable homicide, and in some situations I would agree, but the act itself is evil. She could have divorced him, reported him to the police, or moved out. All these actions would have the risk of continued problems from her husband; his murder would not. But, by law, and morally, murder is not her option. She should let society take care of the problem. The realities of the problem would not agree. Society is reluctant to sever the relationship between a father and his kids. She would have to provide evidence of her husband’s guilt, so again many people would consider this a justifiable homicide. Only if she has exhausted all other options first would I consider the act to not be evil. Serial killers, mass killers and such murders can easily be considered evil. Although their only motive is self-gratification, it is definitely at the expense of others.

Good and Evil are absolutes, and no person is absolutely one or the other; there are a lot of shades of gray. But, the relative goodness or evil of a person or an act can be judged by their motive. That is why the difference between murder one and manslaughter is determined by the intentions (motives) of the murderer. A person who kills another in a car accident will be a murder, and charged as such. They did not intend to commit the murder, but it happened. In cases where the person didn’t do anything wrong; that the act of murder was truly an accident; then society would not want to charge that person with manslaughter, and the charges would be dismissed before being brought to trial. If the same person was drunk and had a DWI conviction on their records then it can be argued that they had the intent to drive while drunk, and they didn’t care if it would hurt others; then that case could be filed as a manslaughter with special circumstances and make the person eligible for a stiffer sentence.

Now which of those acts was evil? In both cases a person was killed, but it was an accident, and the person did not intend to murder someone. The accident had no motive, no intention so it may be a bad act, but not an evil one. The drunken person violated the law, by driving while drunk; they had an intent to commit this crime; so that can be considered to be an evil act. If the drunk didn’t have a record of driving while drunk then his actual intent could be argued. Many courts would then go for the lower crime of DWI with special circumstances. Their murder could still be considered an accident. The person drove while drunk though, and that was illegal, but that only aggravated the accident (it probably increased the chance of the accident to), but the person didn’t have intent.

So which act is evil? A true accident is not an evil act because the person did not have the intent to commit murder. Participation in an illegal act though shows intent to do wrong and that makes the act evil. Justifiable homicide is rare, murder is an evil act, but society recognizes that sometimes a person gets so desperate, and the situation seems so bad that they feel they have no choice but to commit murder. This act is judged by the intent of the person. If it is done by a woman trying to save her family, and she has exhausted other methods, then the act may not be considered a murder. If the murder is good or evil can be debated. The woman is trying to save her family. She has tried to solve the problem and is forced to resort to the final solution. In my opinion that does not make the act an evil one. It is a bad one and not a good act, but sometimes a person has no other choice.

In a war many people are killed. When one soldier kills another that is because they had no choice, it was kill or be killed. The soldier that kills another is trying to promote the welfare of their country, not just himself and his friends. It isn’t a good act, but it isn’t an evil one either. If the soldier kills someone who has already surrendered, or was a noncombatant then it is clear that the act was evil. The soldier commits the killing out of personal reasons, revenge, hatred or whatever. The person that the soldier killed was no longer a threat to the soldier or their country.

Therefore an evil act is one that has the INTENT to advance the person, or their friends. An act could be an evil act or a good act, or it could be a bad act. The difference is the intent. When a person tries to advance themselves and society in general they could be performing a good act. If that act doesn’t hurt others then it is a good act. A banker foreclosing on a farm may not be committing an evil act. If the intent is advance the stockholders and customers of the bank, and the banker gets nothing out of the act, except his normal salary; then the act is not an evil one. It is certainly not a good act, the farmer was hurt, but it is not an evil act. So a big component of deciding if an act is evil or good is how that act affects others. If it is done to improve the situation of the person or their friends then it is not a good act. If the act is done to improve the condition of people that the person may not know, and this group is not an evil group; then the act can be considered a good act.

Here is a statement for you to ponder: A sin is an act that hurts someone: either themselves, others, society in general, or god.

Answer 7

" If the meaning grew to become into so "clean," there does not be 30,000 Christian denominations on my own." honest adequate, yet there probable are not 30,000 interpretations of "do not homicide". the two they are valid or they are not. the reality that folk squabble over their meaning (the two for laudable and not so laudable motives) is beside the point. human beings squabble over the translation the form ... a checklist that grew to become into written decrease than 3 hundred years in the past. It does not exchange the reality that those human beings laid down seven unique articles. Seven articles for which they maximum easily had a particular theory in ideas, yet a theory over which we proceed to squabble over to this present day.

Answer 8

Try the 10 commandmants in the Bible for a basis of good and evil.

Answer 9

Evil means hurting someone else or hurting something.

Answer 10

People label what they cannot understand or are ignorant of "evil". What is "good" to most is what is closest to what they are, know and understand.