"No... I will not get roped into yet another philosophical debate...."
I might easily argue that Good and Evil are convenient wrappers with big capital letters used by humans to understand behaviors they find particularly interesting. The behaviors of Good and Evil are indifferent. Its the human experience of them that get the fish wrappers.
Not a satisfying answer, but that's what you get for 45 seconds of my time...
And here's the other half of the "phenomenological good"/"phenomenological evil" idea that an earlier comment stirred up in my skull. If I may trouble you for an additional twenty seconds of your time, would you say that this is compatible with the "So its not Go(o)d fighting evil, but God encompasses all things which include good and evil where evil is the lack of good" concept from et_alii's comment above?
Um no, I can't agree with this for several reasons:
1) The existance of God would place a whole different light on the problem. I was speaking to definitions of Good and Evil which are defined by the perceptions of human beings. If there were no human beings to perceive them, would there be good and evil? Possibly not. Good and Evil can't really exist without someone to perceive and define them, and that includes God.
2) I don't accept the "evil is the lack of good concept" any more than I would likely accept that "good is the lack of evil." Good and Evil require active participation to give them substance, not the absence of their supposed dopplegangers.
3) Can we define Good and Evil relative to each other? Sure, but this won't necessarily define them properly. Imagine if we tried to define concepts such as "big" and "small" in this manner. The concepts are too complex and dynamic for a static definition, and even a relative measure won't yield consistant results across time periods or differing cultures.
So not only do Good and Evil require active participation to create, they require active observation to identify.
(no subject)
I might easily argue that Good and Evil are convenient wrappers with big capital letters used by humans to understand behaviors they find particularly interesting. The behaviors of Good and Evil are indifferent. Its the human experience of them that get the fish wrappers.
Not a satisfying answer, but that's what you get for 45 seconds of my time...
(no subject)
(no subject)
1) The existance of God would place a whole different light on the problem. I was speaking to definitions of Good and Evil which are defined by the perceptions of human beings. If there were no human beings to perceive them, would there be good and evil? Possibly not. Good and Evil can't really exist without someone to perceive and define them, and that includes God.
2) I don't accept the "evil is the lack of good concept" any more than I would likely accept that "good is the lack of evil." Good and Evil require active participation to give them substance, not the absence of their supposed dopplegangers.
3) Can we define Good and Evil relative to each other? Sure, but this won't necessarily define them properly. Imagine if we tried to define concepts such as "big" and "small" in this manner. The concepts are too complex and dynamic for a static definition, and even a relative measure won't yield consistant results across time periods or differing cultures.
So not only do Good and Evil require active participation to create, they require active observation to identify.