I don't believe evil must exist for good to exist. Let us imagine that there is a possible world in which the only existent is God. God (according to the Judeo-Christian tradition) is wholly good: evil is
neither coextensive nor coterminous with God (please overlook the issue of temporality or atemporality vis-a-vis God for now). In this possible world, it seems that one could say that good exists. But would evil obtain in a possible world wherein (a holy) God is the only (possible) existent? In what way could evil obtain in such a possible world, granting the premises? If only good obtained in this world and evil did not obtain, would it not be true to say that good could exist without the concomitant existence of evil (in this case)? If what I am proposing is logically possible, then it is not necessarily true (maybe it is even untrue) that one needs evil in order for good to exist.
2006-09-07 08:22:40 · 17 answers · asked by sokrates 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Evil normally is described in terms of moral and natural evil. However one defines evil, it certainly seems to happen to both animals and humans. Animals evidently do not know the difference between good and evil. So how does evil benefit non-human animals? They cannot learn any moral lessons from evil. Furthermore, J.L. Mackie argues that there could be an absolute sense for words like "great" or "small" such that it would be logically possible for great things to exist without small things simultaneously existing and vice versa. That is, it is logically possible that one would not need to have a concept like "great" to know what "small" means; nor would one need to have a concept like "great" in order to know what "small" means.
2006-09-07 08:47:07 · update #1
This question has been asked ad infinitum. It has more answers than are imaginable. One would be that good and evil are constructs in time and place and only exist to the extent that they apply. If killing is bad, i.e., evil, then war is bad, i.e., evil and there can never be any moral justification for it. Yes? Then why war? Why defend yourself, your family, etc.? I guess the "good" thing about these types of questions (which I think about a lot) is that we keep them in the forefront and possibly come up with some "good" solutions for solving complex problems.
2006-09-07 08:29:31 · answer #1 · answered by Siri 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Traditionally this question would be handled by asking the simple question: If there wasn't any evil, would we even know what good was? So, basically for every idea or notion in the world, there must be an opposite for it to contrast.
Some might say that this is just a problem of language, but it also works in the question of free will. If all we could commit were good acts, then there wouldn't be free will - so we would basically be robots. So, in order to have free will in this world, there has to be evil and good.
2006-09-07 15:29:16 · answer #2 · answered by Paley Pale 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
evil now has to exist because of what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. But before they gave into temptation, the world was a perfect place
2006-09-07 15:50:29 · answer #3 · answered by Kremer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evil and good will always exist together until apocalypses which is defined as the end of evil where God will make all things new, and cast out the devil(the father of evil) forever. Evil and good coexists on earth because of Adam's rebellion and choice to follow the devil where he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. this was the beginning of good and evils coexistence on earth as we know it
2006-09-07 17:18:55 · answer #4 · answered by message 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Taking God out of the picture, if there was no evil, we would have no base line to judge what is good.
So in a sense you must have evil, in order to locate good.
2006-09-07 15:38:10 · answer #5 · answered by Rhodri H 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good and evil are definitely codependent. In a conflict, both sides believe they are good and that the other side is evil because they work on incompatible principles. Take the war on terror for instance. America paints itself as good and Islamic terrorists as evil, but they see themselves as acting righteously and us as the evil ones. I don't think there is any objective basis for good and evil.
2006-09-07 17:13:44 · answer #6 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evil is the only way. Come to the dark side. There can be no good without evil...otherwise, how would you really say something was good? There would be nothing to compare it to...so it would just be the way things are neither good nor evil.
2006-09-07 15:26:23 · answer #7 · answered by James R 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe that it must exist because how else would you know the difference between the two. Thier must be a balance if you must. An equal exchange.
2006-09-07 15:27:48 · answer #8 · answered by Booker 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, you can define something with its opposite. if there was no evil you would not know the meaning of good. if there was no dark, there wouldnt be light... no day if there wasnt any night.
my only exclusion might be love, faith and hope. they dont need their opposites to exist or to be defined..
2006-09-07 15:28:53 · answer #9 · answered by Arwen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can light exist without dark?
2006-09-07 15:28:32 · answer #10 · answered by The Man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋