General Question

Myndecho's avatar

Do you think we need evil if there is to be good?

Asked by Myndecho (948points) May 13th, 2009

I would agree good and evil event are on a scale rather than seeing them as all the same, if we took away everything we saw as evil we would see things further down the scale just as evil as what we saw evil event such as murder.
For example today many people see capital punishment as how evil humans are but just jump back a few hundred years and you maybe killed just for looking at a high member of society in the wrong way something that is unlikely to happen today.
(I don’t agree with this 100% and I don’t believe good and evil are anything more than feelings)

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

7 Answers

ubersiren's avatar

Yeah, I think I agree with what you’re saying if I’m understanding it correctly. Like if there was no murder, foul play, or other evil, then we would possibly just think that a dog crapping on our sidewalk is evil. Is that right? Did I get it at all?

tiffyandthewall's avatar

the existence of ‘evil’ basically helps us put things into perspective. we judge everything according to our own morality, so it’s always either good or bad. i don’t really think it would be possible to view something as good without seeing anything as bad. but i don’t know. great question

sccrowell's avatar

I always believed if we didn’t have bad days, we wouldn’t appreciate the good days!!! I still believe that. If there weren’t evil would we know what goodness was? Does that make sense?

Nially_Bob's avatar

I do not believe there to be an objective ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as if such were present all (or atleast the vast majority of) societies and cultures will have become aware of such by this time when this is not so. However I concur that there should be a collection of societally developed laws and guidelines regarding what is ‘acceptable’ dependant upon what is in said societies best interests. To illustrate this point I shall state that some populations in this world shall react differently to the death penalty (in that some will have a lessened crime rate due to it’s presence and some shall not) and so whether such a thing should be implemented and whether the moral and ethical sacrifices that follow it’s implementation accordingly are reasonable is to be considered. However, regardless of what is decided with concerns to this the death penalty should not be thought of as ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ and particularly not infallible (one of the most common errors in reasoning I come in contact with is the “it works for them so it will work for us” logic utilised to justify various opinions. Many fail to accept that the reason that it works for “them” is because they’re “them” and we are “us”. Different cultures react differently) but simply used, perhaps to the benefit of those using and perhaps to their detriment.
To those who believe there to be objective meanings of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ I would inquire how one defines such things. Why is murder ‘evil’? Why is kindness ‘good’?
With this stated I come to realise I have not yet answered the question directly for which I offer my sincere apologies. The concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ cannot live seperately, one is required to define the other, just as with all opposing entities. For example how could one appreciate life if death were to not exist?

b's avatar

Being evil is more fun.

Cardinal's avatar

Everything is relative to something else.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther