Good or evil?

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete philosophi?

What counts as good or evil? What would you consider as a good definition of good and evil? Do they even exist?

Valete,
Draco

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve Draco
Good, evil, right and wrong are all human inventions to simplefy to world, at least in my point of view. These things were invented to label certain actions like murder, rape, incest, child molesting, etc... True, these things are morally wrong and i'm not going to say otherwise. My point is that good and evil are labels that can be streched in a way that there isn't any possibility to realy define them as we can properly define murder, rape, etc... actions that are good and evil depend on the person commiting them. A murderer who kills for pleasure don't necessary see it as evil, wrong but the community does so it as evil. What is good/evil to one person might be considered evil/good by another person. These things do exist, because it lies in our nature do be either good as evil. Every person has the ability to do harm or to do right. It only depends on the morality of the person in question.
valete
Romulus

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete omnes,

Good? Evil? I should've known it would only be a matter of time before we got onto this topic.

Right. Good and evil. Hmm. Yes, they do exist, but always combined. To say Hitler was entirely evil, or Genghis Khan, Caligula, or any other is entirely evil, is to be wrong. Some ideas, events, or acts may be evil, but the evil person with no good in them does not exist. As one quote goes,
"Should you ever find yourself hating a person, just remember: you would not wish harm on them were you to be in their shoes for just a day. There is enough pain in every person's life." Character is a result of both genetics and environment; for instance, I once knew a person who used to do some really sick things, just for the pleasure of doing them. She was physically and sexually abused at the age of 8. Was she evil? No. She did some evil acts, but she was the result of traumatic events in her past.

But I digress. But then, is it possible not to when talking about such a vague subject?

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Anonymous]

what is good or bad?objectively good?does it exist??
human being which can become everything is like air ?who tell me the truth?

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

I believe in the Socratic concept of good and evil, actually. No man does evil wittingly; it's because he doesn't know it's evil, or, he might be aware of it but doesn't understand why (such people lack empathy).

Basically good and evil have to do with advantage and disadvantage, pleasure and pain. I think moral conflicts arise when people confuse pleasure/advantage = good with empathy = good. I think morality based on empathy is a superior form of morality, which also enhances the advantage/pleasure-theory in the end. If you can truly understand how another person feels and act accordingly, this person is very likely to return the favour and even if not, you will still have gained knowledge. And as we all know, there's no knowledge without power.

Valete,
Draco

[Anonymous]

I believe there is not so called concept"evil or moral "in the Socratic theory!Accordingin to the classical theory,it exist "natural right" or "good".
If someone get the knowledge on "good",he will do it correctly.Knowledge is virtue.But the problem is that "what the natural right is".
If someone want to solve this problem,he must understand "what Eros is"!
Eros is a verb,which means "to love"or"or"to lust"!And then why does someone have Eros?Becaus human is lack of something.what is human lack of? immortality ！！！Everybody will die!human is mortal!The word"Mortal"has double meanings:first means "human ",second means"Liable or subject to death"
i think ,this is the secret of Eros!
If someone know the secret of Eros,and then he will get "what is good or right".

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve,

A question first: what does your nickname mean? As it reads now it sounds like potato? :-s

I believe there is not so called concept"evil or moral "in the Socratic theory!Accordingin to the classical theory,it exist "natural right" or "good".
If someone get the knowledge on "good",he will do it correctly.Knowledge is virtue.But the problem is that "what the natural right is".

Knowledge is not virtue. Knowledge is indifferent.

If someone want to solve this problem,he must understand "what Eros is"!
Eros is a verb,which means "to love"or"or"to lust"!And then why does someone have Eros?Becaus human is lack of something.what is human lack of? immortality ！！！Everybody will die!human is mortal!The word"Mortal"has double meanings:first means "human ",second means"Liable or subject to death"
i think ,this is the secret of Eros!
If someone know the secret of Eros,and then he will get "what is good or right".

"Eros" is not a verb but a noun, iirc. I think the verb you mean is "erotân".

Anyway, since you equate love to morality, what about passionate crimes? A man finds out his wife is cheating on him with the neighbour and kills the neighbour or the wife. Clearly, love is involved here. In fact it's quite possibly the only cause why the man would feel jealousy and betrayal so deeply. How would you explain this?

Vale bene!
Draco

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

I disagree with Draco. I think a person can be very wtty when doing evil.

Potation I think may be correct in that in Socratic thought knowledge is equated with virtue. But virtue is not a matter of good and evil. Plotinus offers that our conception of relative good and evil changes as we gain knowledge and move on to a higher understanding of the virtues.

The question of "objective good" I find interesting. Do you mean a good for a community, for the planet, or for the universe? And then with Platonism, is there an absolute good that individuals should strive after?

Valete

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Piscine,

I disagree with Draco. I think a person can be very wtty when doing evil.

Perhaps I misused the word "wittingly", but I thought it had, as only meaning "while knowing it" or "being aware of it". That's what I meant. That no man can commit an evil deed if he knows (both on an intellectual and empathical level) it is evil. Or perhaps one could do something evil and realise it, and then feel the guilt. Guilt is an interesting emotion. Perhaps we need to explore that one too.

Potation I think may be correct in that in Socratic thought knowledge is equated with virtue.

It may be, but I thought it was more an Aristotelean thought that knowledge is virtue. Striving for knowledge I would personally consider a virtue, but not explicitly doing so would, at least for me, not be a sin or an evil act. Of course, consciously limiting your own world and agressively confining you and others to it I would consider "evil" (I don't really like this word, actually, it sounds too simplistic for my tastes).

But virtue is not a matter of good and evil. Plotinus offers that our conception of relative good and evil changes as we gain knowledge and move on to a higher understanding of the virtues.

The question of "objective good" I find interesting. Do you mean a good for a community, for the planet, or for the universe? And then with Platonism, is there an absolute good that individuals should strive after?

As much of an anti-Platonic I often am, in this respect I agree that there is quite possibly an absolute good. What was also good about Plato is that he essentially recognised the power of beauty as a "good" thing, rather than other philosophers who madly rejected outer beauty as something transient, something not to be admired (well, Plato also thought the terrestial world was transient but he thought that earthly beauty could at least mimic divine beauty).

Of course, the question is, what would that absolute good be? Complete and profound understanding of another person's needs, feelings and so on? Being a Buddha? Or a new Messiah?

Optime vale,
Draco