Good vs. EVIL

[Draklar]

Eh? Posting the image was just a way of saying that people pollute water... do you really need a proof in form of website to believe they do that?

- Swords

[XpYtZ]

In answer to your question:
    It is my personal belief that you are born with a knowledge of right and wrong -with few exceptions. That system (AKA your conscience) is then morphed and changed over time by the ethics tought it in the household and society.
Eventually your own \'set of ethics\' comes into view, however this set will slowly morph over time as well.
For instance my dads ethics are far different in his old age than they were when he was my age. Also the systems that I adhered to as a child are different from those I have come to accept as I have grown.

I\'d have to say however that a large majority of us quelch our consence on many issues and end up, like I said before, angry, jaded and rash people.

[Ionas]

Originally posted by Draklar
Are we born with set of ethics or do we gain it by living in society? Or maybe by observations and experience taken from life?

That would be pretty hard to find out. But i think ethics come when the child grows into an adult. Children and babys have different views and understanding of the world than adults per age period.  Babys for example simply take toys of other babys, so it seems they do not understand the concept of stealing or property for that matter.

If conscience is born or taught is another aspect. There are cultures were people donnot feel guilt when they do someting wrong only shame.

And to add to the dictionary view on good evil, the dutch dictionary van dale gives a very general definition of good and evil. But says nothing about suffering. What is considered good and evil varies per culture and society. Even in cultures that have much in common like Europe and the US different ideas exist about right and wrong.

[Draklar]

XpYtZ: Just few days ago I believed that conscience is formed by society and personal experiences.
But then I came across that text:

Ideas and truths are innate in us -- as inclinations, dispositions, tendencies or natural potentialities. The human mind by its nature contains the basis of certain concepts and theories only to be awakened in appropriate conditions by outside objects.

Quite interesting view and I could agree with your statement. Still have to look into it a bit more...

- Swords

[Adeli]

I agree with Moogie here.
Take Hitler for example, he thought he was doing good, so did many other people... most saw it as evil though.

Draklar, almost everything about the human mind at birth is assumption, there is no way to know for sure, hence the whole nature vs. nurture debate.
Personally, I believe that we learn ethics and a sense of right and wrong (NOT good and evil). If children innately know what is wrong, why do they do things. Their innocent ignorance has no sign of morality, but they do not realise that not everything they do is acceptable.
This is as I stated, my personal belief.

Though with the character alignment argument... You defined Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil, they are only the extremes. Robin Hood for example, would be Chaotic Good. He breaks the law multiple times, but for the good of the oppressed.
You need to focus on the shades of grey, not just the black and white.

I\'ve decided to quote the \'Nine Alignments\' from the D&D Players Handbook, v 3.5, pages 104-106.

Lawful Good, \"Crusader\":  A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Neutral Good, \"Benefactor\":  A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Chaotic Good, \"Rebel\": A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he\'s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Lawful Neutral, \"Judge\": A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition or a personal code directs her. Order and organisation are paramount to her. She may believe in a personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favour a strong, organised government.
Neutral, \"Undecided\": A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn\'t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbours and rulers than evil ones. Still, she\'s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balances road in the long run.
Chaotic Neutral, \"Free Spirit\": A chaotic neutral character follows him whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn\'t strive to protect others\' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organisation as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behaviour is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Lawful Evil, \"Dominator\": A lawful evil villain methodicallly takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regards for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a heirarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to their race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as a part of duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called \"diabolical\", because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Neutral Evil, \"Malefactor\": A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with.She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for sport, profit, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following any laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn\'t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities and secret societies.
Chaotic Evil, \"Destroyer\": A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organised. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called \"demonic\" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

That took a long time to type. My character Tyralus will be the second variant of neutral. I also thought this appropriate. \"Good vs. Evil\" also on page 104 of that fine book.

\"Good\" implies altruism, respect for life, and a conern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
\"Evil\" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Also \"Law vs. Chaos\" on, you guessed it page 104.

\"Law\" implies honour, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behaviour can create a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
\"Chaos\" implies freedom, adaptability and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority and, arbitrary actions, and irresponsiblity. Those who promote chaotic behaviour say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

These quotes discuss the four extremes, of the two scales, but that page goes on to discuss the grey areas implicit in both. It is well worth reading.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by Adeli
If children innately know what is wrong, why do they do things. Their innocent ignorance has no sign of morality, but they do not realise that not everything they do is acceptable.

You seem to not understand the text I quoted...
only to be awakened in appropriate conditions by outside objects.

And I already answered the hitler example. If good and evil depended on people\'s opinions then both wouldn\'t exist. But they do, isn\'t mass murder evil? So where\'s the relativity? Is an action any less evil because madman sees it as good?

Also why do you seem to point all that alignment stuff to me? I didn\'t talk about alignments in this thread...

\"evil\" is not equal to \"evil alignment\"
That I think is obvious...

-Swords

[Psycon]

No Darklar, mass muder isn\'t evil. The reason for mass murder can be evil. Actions themselves can\'t be good or evil because it\'s all about the reason why you do it (like killing for food isn\'t evil).

And about the thing you are born with the concept of good or evil why do children when are little are evil? Like they can be the most selfish beeings in the world if not taught otherwise. Morality is too complex to have since birth. Think about different cultures with different moral codes. Not to mention that humans naturally imitate what they see, especially when they are young.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by Psycon
No Darklar, mass muder isn\'t evil. The reason for mass murder can be evil. Actions themselves can\'t be good or evil because it\'s all about the reason why you do it (like killing for food isn\'t evil).

If you get late for bus, you\'re still late, no matter if you wanted to get late or not.
If you hit someone, you still hit him, no matter if you wanted to hit him or not.
If you do something evil, it\'s still evil, no matter if you wanted to do something evil or not.


If what you say is true, then you can murder, steal and rape... but as long as you see reason behind it as good, you\'re pure good... a saint...

To me saint would be the one who tries to not harm others... no matter what. Not the one who causes suffering in the name of higher good.

Uhm, why children are evil?
only to be awakened in appropriate conditions by outside objects.

And morality being too complex? One might say that paranormal activities are too complex... and yet children experience them more often than older people. When they still have clear mind, safe from all the society bs.
Wouldn\'t it be then quite safe to assume that children have different perception of their existance. And at that their own set of ethics and morals, even if their young age disallows them to fully understand it? Something that could be called a \"Natural Mind\"?
Even if it\'s primitive
right is what pleases you
wrong is what makes you suffer

Rest of your post could be answered by reading what XpYtZ said.

- Swords

[Adeli]

I don\'t agree, I feel it depends entirely on your intentions, and your perception.
Good and Bad are not the same as Good and Evil.

I\'d wager that if you isolated a child through to adulthood, they would have no morals, as there would be no bearing on what is right or wrong. Saying that it is innate but brought on by outside influences is a contradiction. It is either there to begin with, or you learn it.
I forgot to mention, with Nature/Nurture, many scientists now feel it is a combination of both.

I used the alignment thing because it shows the general ideas behind good/evil, law/chaos. Plus, it may benefit someone who is making a character, it may be OT, but it is still a PlaneShift board.

[Psycon]

Originally posted by Draklar
Even if it\'s primitive
right is what pleases you
wrong is what makes you suffer

So you finnaly understand something of my philosophy although it\'s one towards evil because the point of all the moral laws is the relation with other ppl which will suffer if you think only about yourself.

But the main idea behind any moral laws is not to do whatever you want so you can\'t say children suddenly have a need to be polite etc. not to mention that children which don\'t have contact with another human beeing while little don\'t devellop their brains normally(they can\'t learn to speak) so you can\'t really have a case of genetical induced behaviour since the contact with society has such a crucial part in one\'s life. Instincts play a crucial part in animals but at humans are greatly reduced... and if you wanna be a good person you follow your instincts less and less. You might say that some have the instinct to be good but the truth is that it\'s a reflex develloped by doing good repetatly. It\'s a fact that human reflexes have no boundry in complexity so you can devellop a reflex in everything.

Getting back to the rape and murder etc. so called \"evils\" I must ask you Darklar if you  consider for example a cat evil?

Oh and I didn\'t say if you have a reason behind an action than the action is good. What I wanted to say is that each action usually has a reason and if the reason is good than the action is good but if the reason is evil the action will be evil.

[Draklar]

So you finnaly understand something of my philosophy

oh, I understood it from beginning. I simply disagree with it. Because it seems to show that evil = wrong and good = right. Well at least if you\'d replace \"evil\" with \"wrong\" and \"good\" with \"right\", it would make much more sense.

although it\'s one towards evil because the point of all the moral laws is the relation with other ppl which will suffer if you think only about yourself.

I don\'t see the point where thinking about yourself is evil.
Also a little flaw in understanding of moral laws: the point is relation with all living creatures.
You seem to forget about creatures besides humans (at that,  joint narcissism or simple disregard) and that morality is also about the way you behave towards yourself.
You contradict yourself btw: What if causing suffering in others is result of believing that thinking about yourself is good? From what you said, in this case making others suffer is a good action (since the reason is good).

if you wanna be a good person you follow your instincts less and less.

Is that your personal belief or actual fact?
Because I don\'t want to follow my instincts any less. If I\'m in danger I try to escape it, if someone attacks me, I try to defend myself, if I need food, I eat... it is a right thing to do for me, does it make me evil?

Getting back to the rape and murder etc. so called \"evils\" I must ask you Darklar if you consider for example a cat evil?

eh, since cat does both good and evil... no.

What I wanted to say is that each action usually has a reason and if the reason is good than the action is good but if the reason is evil the action will be evil.

yes that\'s what I\'m saying. If someone with messed up mind believes that by killing many people he does something good, then the reason is good. It\'s simple, really, all you have to do is believe that who you kill is evil and by killing them, you become good. Like Depthblade or hitler

It seems that you still don\'t understand the quote I gave, so no point in answering other parts of post...

- Swords

[XpYtZ]

Just a note but most of the people that were cheering for Hitler\'s actions were praising the way he held his country together by creating jobs, and the like, not the death camps.
Also Relitave Morality just doesn\'t fly. How can every action be good and wrong simultaniously. Are you saying that everytime anyone breaths they are doing an evil act just because it is keeping them alive? That seems a little backwards, since that is also what trees, and other plants that use photosynthosys, require to survive.
Also the \'can\'t be tought to talk\' reference would not be to the \'wild boy\' from England would it? Because he was not \'naturaly\' violent, and generally disliked seeing anything get injured. Sounds like \'right\' to me and no one taught him anything untill after he was found.

[Hatchnet]

The wolves taught him XpYtZ. But with their limited reasoning abilitys they only taught him to be what they perceved a good human should be. Remember animals are not barbaric just a part of nature.

[XpYtZ]

A: you can call me X. It is easyer.
B: Funny.

[Moogie]

Originally posted by Moogie

Originally posted by Draklar
If what you say is true, then you can murder, steal and rape... but as long as you see reason behind it as good, you\'re pure good... a saint...

That\'s perfectly correct, actually. People who are mentally unstable enough to do these sorts of things don\'t see they\'re doing anything wrong at all. Their opinion of themselves is good, even if everyone else\'s opinion of them is that he\'s evil.

Thus, to reiterate, good and evil is just a difference of opinion.