Equality

[Immanuel Can]

Evil is more than inconvenient. It may repulse and/or frighten. The evil in the world is certainly against us.

Yes, I think so, too.

So it needs an explanation. And let's face it: human beings aren't always victims, helpless subjects of an evil that's "out there" in the environment...sometimes, they're perpetrators -- knowing, malevolent, deliberate perpetrators of evil. And that also needs explanation; for while this world seems strangely hostile to the good in its own way, human beings also act in ways that are hostile to the good, in theirs.

And why should that be?

[Immanuel Can]

Good people don’t harm other people. Evil people do. Evil people have evil impulses, which are neither controlled nor ignored.

Then let's ask the question, "Why are there evil people"? For isn't it obvious that it would be better for us all if they were good?

But even good people sometimes do bad things. Maybe the difference is that good people sometimes do evil without intending to, and then feel regret after the fact, and bad people do evil knowing what they're doing. But maybe that's even too simple. Maybe all people are mixtures of the good and the evil. And maybe it's only a question of relative balance.

For who is truly good, save God alone?

[Immanuel Can]

Normal is whatever the majority of all the people think.

The majority of the world, both now and historically, have thought that women are inferior to men. If what you were saying were true, you'd have to say that was "normal."

Happy with that?

It might be "average," but being "normal" requires a reference to norms. And the question is, "Is the equality of women and men the right norm, even though the majority does not believe it."

[Immanuel Can]

It does seem however that politically left people are more interested in causes of crimes than are politically right people.

Causes? No. There seems a very equal distribution of interest in that. What the Left is interested is in controlling thought and speech, punishing "crimes" of thought and intention, as well as limiting free speech.

I am not familiar with the term 'thoughtcrimes' but surely nobody at all thinks it's a crime to think a thought?

It's a term coined by Orwell, who foresaw the rise of the totalitarian Left in his book, 1984. In it, people are charged criminally for exhibiting anything that can be interpreted as having a non-PC thought.

We're pretty much there, with the rise of the pomo Left. So maybe he should have called his book 2024.

[Immanuel Can]

Still, within a relativist framework, the addict would think that heroin is good.

Yes, quite. Good point.

But if "good" were simply defined by the opinions people hold, then we would have to concede that a heroin addict had every right to kill himself with it, so long as he believed he was having a "good" trip. That's a basic problem with Relativism.

[commonsense]

Evil is more than inconvenient. It may repulse and/or frighten. The evil in the world is certainly against us.

Yes, I think so, too.

So it needs an explanation. And let's face it: human beings aren't always victims, helpless subjects of an evil that's "out there" in the environment...sometimes, they're perpetrators -- knowing, malevolent, deliberate perpetrators of evil. And that also needs explanation; for while this world seems strangely hostile to the good in its own way, human beings also act in ways that are hostile to the good, in theirs.

And why should that be?

I don’t know why, but I wonder if evil is necessary so that we can recognize good. Without evil, everything would be okay, but could we recognize it as good without good’s antithesis?

Of course, this may only be a semantic problem. “Okay” in that scenario would just be another word for “good”.

[commonsense]

Normal is whatever the majority of all the people think.

The majority of the world, both now and historically, have thought that women are inferior to men. If what you were saying were true, you'd have to say that was "normal."

Happy with that?

It might be "average," but being "normal" requires a reference to norms. And the question is, "Is the equality of women and men the right norm, even though the majority does not believe it."

I believe your example fails in that the majority gender has been women for quite some time. However, I see your point. As you know, I would have it as that either the mean or the median would be the norm. The norm could be anything we acquiesce to. The loss of small businesses could be the norm in the States. Not wearing masks could turn out to be the norm. Unaccountability in government could be the norm. Sadly, evil could be the norm.

[commonsense]

Mind you, I put forth a relativistic view of good and evil, but I wish it were not so. I would welcome absolute definitions for good and evil.

[Belinda]

Mind you, I put forth a relativistic view of good and evil, but I wish it were not so. I would welcome absolute definitions for good and evil.

Here are a few candidates:

Good v evil

Love v fear

Wisdom v ignorance

Tribalism v universalism

Life v death

Order v disorder

[Belinda]

Evil is more than inconvenient. It may repulse and/or frighten. The evil in the world is certainly against us.

Yes, I think so, too.

So it needs an explanation. And let's face it: human beings aren't always victims, helpless subjects of an evil that's "out there" in the environment...sometimes, they're perpetrators -- knowing, malevolent, deliberate perpetrators of evil. And that also needs explanation; for while this world seems strangely hostile to the good in its own way, human beings also act in ways that are hostile to the good, in theirs.

And why should that be?

I don’t know why, but I wonder if evil is necessary so that we can recognize good. Without evil, everything would be okay, but could we recognize it as good without good’s antithesis?

Of course, this may only be a semantic problem. “Okay” in that scenario would just be another word for “good”.

For me, that is the theme of The Expulsion from Eden . That story is not about good and evil , it's about the human condition which is a state of ignorance in which we are forced to choose which is good and which evil. In The Garden of course all is good, necessary, and true.

It is the task of men to work out for ourselves which is which. This is not the case for Christians and Muslims who have had the Ultimate Good revealed to them; for Xians this is revealed by God's Son, and for Muslims Ultimate Gruth is revealed by Gabriel.

[Immanuel Can]

I don’t know why, but I wonder if evil is necessary so that we can recognize good. Without evil, everything would be okay, but could we recognize it as good without good’s antithesis?

Of course, this may only be a semantic problem. “Okay” in that scenario would just be another word for “good”.

Yes, I think that's true. If everything were good, then the word "good" would not refer to anything in specific. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong with an all-good world...it would be a good -- or let us say, desirable -- thing, even if we didn't have a label for that.

[Immanuel Can]

Normal is whatever the majority of all the people think.

The majority of the world, both now and historically, have thought that women are inferior to men. If what you were saying were true, you'd have to say that was "normal."

Happy with that?

It might be "average," but being "normal" requires a reference to norms. And the question is, "Is the equality of women and men the right norm, even though the majority does not believe it."

I believe your example fails in that the majority gender has been women for quite some time.

That raises a different problem, though. In detecting a "majority," who counts? In some countries, women are not regarded as fully human, fully adult, fully responsible, so are not calculated in any discussion of "majority.". And in just about every country, children of a young age are considered non-counters in the estimation of whatever the "majority" is. Likewise the mentally ill and criminal, of course.

However, I see your point. As you know, I would have it as that either the mean or the median would be the norm. The norm could be anything we acquiesce to. The loss of small businesses could be the norm in the States. Not wearing masks could turn out to be the norm. Unaccountability in government could be the norm. Sadly, evil could be the norm.

Yes, quite...and of course, that's actually happened before, so we know it can happen.

[Immanuel Can]

Mind you, I put forth a relativistic view of good and evil, but I wish it were not so. I would welcome absolute definitions for good and evil.

Well, I wonder whether an absolute definition for "evil" is even possible, given that "evil" is generally a corruption or diminishment of some "good." For example, sickness is a lack of health. Theft is a violation of property. Loneliness is a deficiency of relationship. And so on.

It's like "light" is a thing, but "dark" is really not. That's why you can walk into a room and turn on a light, but not walk into a room and turn on the dark.

[commonsense]

I don’t know why, but I wonder if evil is necessary so that we can recognize good. Without evil, everything would be okay, but could we recognize it as good without good’s antithesis?

Of course, this may only be a semantic problem. “Okay” in that scenario would just be another word for “good”.

Yes, I think that's true. If everything were good, then the word "good" would not refer to anything in specific. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong with an all-good world...it would be a good -- or let us say, desirable -- thing, even if we didn't have a label for that.

Yes, exactly so.

[Nick_A]

commonsense wrote:

Mind you, I put forth a relativistic view of good and evil, but I wish it were not so. I would welcome absolute definitions for good and evil.

Genesis 2

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The absolute definition of good and evil and how it is related to the tree of life is a suggested reality. If it is, it cannot be surprising that Man, asleep in Plato's cave, would be unaware of it.