English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

right? can you direct this train of thought into something tangible?

2007-06-24 17:09:29 · 12 answers · asked by Socrates 3 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

12 answers

This is like cold in the absence of heat, or darkness in the absence of light. Cold cannot "change" into heat. The presence of heat vanquishes cold. Darkness doesn't "Change" into light. The presence of light vanquishes darkness.

2007-06-24 17:18:03 · answer #1 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 0 0

I would say, that good is the lack of evil, because evil is an inimical impulse. To do good is harder than to perform evil. Plus, its more positive this way. If evil is the lack of good, it sounds to me like its meant to be a good thing. But hey, im not a philosopher

2007-06-25 00:20:50 · answer #2 · answered by kjpsyk 2 · 0 0

I guess you're comparing it to temperature- cold is the lack of heat, not the other way around. Evil is a much more slippery substance than than the measure of a farenheit or celcius degree of heat. It comes in many forms - and it's a human invention.

2007-06-25 00:16:55 · answer #3 · answered by nickodemus 2 · 0 0

OK - hold on - I need to think about this

Good: morally execellent, virtuous, righteous, pious, not spoiled or ruined, of high quality

Evil: morally wrong, bad, immoral, wicked, destroyed, inferior quality, causing ruin or injury

Right: good, proper, just, reason, desireable, favorable, moral, conforming to the law

Bad: not good, improper, morally reprehensible, undesireable, unfavorable, non-conforming of the law


Hmmmm,
No using these definitions they are not the lack of the other - they are the opposites of the other.

That being said. I dont think you can have one without the other. If you did - what would you compare it to in order to determine its statute in being? ie - how do you know if its good if you dont have something bad to compare it to.


Hope that helps.

2007-06-26 18:23:30 · answer #4 · answered by jimkearney746 5 · 0 0

So Cain (according to Bible) was the first murderer. Was he evil before his brother (and victim) Abel came along?

We live in a relative world. You do not realise how evil you are until you stand in front of glaring goodness.

The enemy of GOOD is not evil. Good is just doing things normal and Evil has been exposed because of the good, so battles him. Good is just defending himself from the evil.
The enemy of Good, is Better.

2007-06-25 01:00:07 · answer #5 · answered by wizebloke 7 · 0 0

I've always heard "The opposite of good isn't evil, it's indifference."

Hmm... something tangible? Hawthorne.

2007-06-25 00:17:35 · answer #6 · answered by violinagin 3 · 0 0

God, no! If you see someone attacking an old lady and don't try to stop it, you are evil too. If you rush to her aid, you are good. So being good requires some effort on your part. Being evil doesn't.

2007-06-25 00:16:49 · answer #7 · answered by KIZIAH 7 · 0 0

good isnt the absence of evil, and evil isnt the absence of good either. good and evil, right and wrong are choices, they are principles and codes that people live by. some people are good, some are bad but being good doesnt mean being right, nor does being bad mean being wrong.
well thats my train of thought, dunno if its going anywhere or if it makes sense lol

2007-06-26 08:18:13 · answer #8 · answered by Wilson J 4 · 0 0

Evil flourishes when the good do nothing.

2007-06-25 00:17:05 · answer #9 · answered by lightningelemental 6 · 0 0

whats wrong with you socrates, you used to be so wise.

why cant good just be good, and evil just be evil? stop shading things.

2007-06-25 00:16:21 · answer #10 · answered by jesusoffh 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers