Well, I was confusing myself today with a simple question. If there were no bad in the world, would good still exist? Some might jump right away and say yes, citing examples such as, you can still be rich and happy, yet, you would be happy and poor since there is no more bad. If you terminate the bad, you terminate the opposite of good, therefore making there be nothing other than good. So really good would exist, it just wouldn't be AS good as it was before, when there was bad... Right?
-
Hey, I'm a pro-amateur smash player.
-
Re: Good And Evil.
So you're saying that good would still exist but it wouldn't mean as much as it does now while there is still evil?
My take on this is pretty simple. Good and evil are subjective. In order for something to be good, there has to be an opposite evil. Good and evil are only definable by a unit. There is the world unit, then there is the continent unit, then there is the country unit, then the state unit, then the city unit, then the individual unit. I could concivably make many more parts of the whole, but basically, when you get down to it, good and evil still comes down to what an individual person thinks is good or evil.
Now, with that out of the way, power might be considered a good. To some, killing to obtain power is a good while being timid and shy is an evil. To another, seeking a non-conflict situation in order to obtain power is a good while killing is evil. (I believe the latter is considered a more universal good, as most people don't believe killing is ever right unless the situation demands it.)
...Ah crap, don't you hate when you run off on a tangent and forget how you were planning on tying it in to the topic at hand? That just happened to me.
But basically, no, I don't think good exist in the absense of evil.SIG PICTURES:
POINTLESSLY TAKING UP BANDWIDTH SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE INTERNET -
Re: Good And Evil.
The question itself makes no sense, there will always be evil, if you take away evil, then neutral becomes the relative evil, take away neutral and then good becomes neutral.Comment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
...?
That made less sense than the original topic, I must say.SIG PICTURES:
POINTLESSLY TAKING UP BANDWIDTH SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE INTERNETComment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
If there was only good,then what would be the point of learning?
Competition? Games?
With no loser, competition is impossible. Thus, people are limited in their reactions with one another.
Thus, it would revert back to good vs evil anyways. (Wow big logic jump.)
Its like a stable equilibrium point in the physics hw Im avoiding.
*Of course, Laharl is also right*Originally posted by Tokzic
Comment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
wat the hell are you guys talking bout evil and good lol!!Comment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
This post really makes an intelligent one huh...
I don't think good can exist without evil because if we got rid of evil what would be left? If we had only good left, then the lesser form of the good would be seen as evil compared to the greater form of good. The other problem is the idea that good and evil can only be decided by a person's morals. If you do something you think is good, someone else could think that what you did is actually evil because you have different morals, making it impossible to actually get rid of evil.Comment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
simply put:
evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Comment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
Remove hot, and what is cold? Remove light, and what is dark? Remove up, and what is down?
Perhaps the answers to those questions will help you better your answer to the initially proposed one.I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds.Comment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
I think the question we need to be asking if there is really a need for good and evil.
Does enjoyment and contentment exist without "good" and therefore, if the general consesus seems to agree that good cannot exist without it, "evil"?
So to make this controversial, let's relate it to the story of Adam and Eve. Were they happy in the garden before they had the knowledge of good and evil? Seems from all accounts that they were. Evil didn't exist, but technically, neither did good. Life just was, and it was pleasant, and they were blissful.
So do we really need good?SIG PICTURES:
POINTLESSLY TAKING UP BANDWIDTH SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE INTERNETComment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
We have a winner!
All he's saying is that there is a concept of degree. 1 is smaller than 2 and 3, but 2 is smaller than only 3. Take away 1 and 2 is now the smallest of those that are left.
Basically, I think this questions radically depends on the context of what we mean by 'good and evil'. If we mean it in a strictly logical sense, then it's essentially comparable to mathematics. Positive is the opposite of negative, and (entirely) without one, the other ceases to exist and we're left with nothing.
However, if we take it in a more human sense, the issue become infinetely more complex- subjectivity ensues.Originally posted by GrandiagodComment
-
Re: Good And Evil.
I like Z3ratul's way of putting it.
Of the numbers 1 2 3 and 4, 1 is obviously the smallest. But say you were to take away that smallest number, 2 is now the smallest of the group. You can take away the smallest, another one will just take its place.
The same concept applies to good and evil. If you take away the good, then the lesser evils would be considered good in comparison to the greater evils, even though they are still evil. The same can be applied to taking away the evil.
Good and evil will always exist, it doesn't matter if either is taken away; it's just that the lesser forms of either will be viewed as what was taken away.
Comment
Comment