Is it possible to know, without a doubt, what is good and what is evil?

so the Question is:
Is it possible to know, without a doubt, what is good and what is evil?
Well clearly this is an opinionated question. The two sides being: “yes, one can know what is good and evil (defiantly) the other being “no, it is not possible to know”.
Now most of this may seem like common sense, knowing wrong from right.
Wrong being that which goes against the ethics and morals of a human being; Things such as stealing, killing, and abusing, etc.
Good being examples of the virtues of man such as acts of charity, aiding your fellow people, and the loyalty one shows friends, etc.
So simply thinking about the acts themselves it is very easy to determine good from wrong, or evil. However, there is another factor to think about: REASON.
The reason can be a redeemer of the action.
Now not all reasons can be a redeemer, one cannot justify the action of abusing however,
If one steals food to feed their family, are they evil?
If one performs acts of charity for the reason of appearance, is that person truly good?
So with what I have said is it your belief or disbelief that one can know, without a doubt, what is good and what is evil?

 

You need to add two words; "for them". Good and evil is relative based on your environment. If you're living in the middle of a major modern city, murder is evil. Everyone around you agrees on this. Even if you do it you know it is evil.

Another person living in an isolated jungle community with little outside contact and who is use to killing strangers won't consider that murder, but would consider murdering someone in their own tribe murder.

This is not limited to physical location and environment, but temporally as well. Two hundred years ago it would be a great evil for two people to sleep together outside of wedlock. Now most people don't even blink.

Bottom line answer to your question is one can only know for sure what is good and evil for him or her. Other people in other place and other times might hold radically different ideas of what is good and evil. Society guides these general beliefs more than anything else.

 

It is not possible to know if an action or item or event is good or evil because we don't know the concequences of that action. But I do believe in karma and it cuts both ways.

 

As beauty is in the eye ofr the beholder, so it is with reasoning what is good and what is evil. It seems to be that it will mostly depend on the circumstances

 

I don't need to know what you said. Only a fool imagines the need for an exhaustive catalogue of either; but uncorrupted children always know evil when they see it, by virtue of the good in themselves that they do not see.

 

Most People 'In Bed With Absolute Evil'...

Beck: Most Americans ‘in bed with absolute evil’ and ‘worshiping Baal’
Conservative commentator Glenn Beck recently declared that most people were “in bed with absolute evil” because America was becoming a more secular society and getting away from conservative principles taught by the Bible.

 

Problem "good" and "evil" are entirely subjective concepts. May be more use in asking what is moral and what is not-moral. Can be done, has been done, is being done and so it has been for a few thousand years. Humanity is building up its knowledge of moral and non-moral but it will always be a work in progress.

 

No, the problem is that so many people believe nonsense like this.

So you think morality is objective, but that good and evil are not. Have I got that about right?

More accurately, it is trying to engineer a system of morality to replace that which every human is born with access to.

To be sure, the devil doesn't expect to transform the Earth into one mammoth gulag overnight.

 

Good this is when you were not squashed by someone's car. Evil this is when you are driving your car,and you do squashed someone.Everything else in life is Entropy.

 

"Good" and "evil" are subjective terms, they can be tacked onto anything but mean nothing. Hot dogs are good, hamburgers are evil. Basketball is good, football is evil. Means nothing, just descriptors.

 

I don't know what you hope to accomplish with such mindless repetition, but if the idea is to get me to think you're a moron you are definitely making progress towards that end.

Of course they mean nothing to shallow-minded egomaniacs for whom good is what makes them feel good and evil is everything else, as such people are allergic to meaning in the first place. That hardly proves they are meaningless to others.

 

yguy - you've not made a point, merely some sort of faint insult which appears to substitute for thinking on your part. I don't care if you think I'm a moron. I don't care if you think I'm a shallow-minded egomaniac. I don't care if you don't understand that "good" and "evil" are merely descriptor words to be attached by someone to whatever they wish. I do care that you should understand that "good" and "evil" are subjective.

 

That's good, because there is nothing about a rancid imbecility that lends itself to understanding.

Yeah, I get it. You want me to partake of the confusion you live in, and to affirm that which is clearly contrary to what you and I both know. Ain't happenin', sorry for any inconvenience.

 

There is nothing "subjective" surrounding the abject evil of pedophilia sexual sadism....
there are no "disorders" that can excuse a human being from understanding the evils of such acts.

 

You've made my point. You can tack "evil" onto a sexual act to describe it, or at least to describe your attitude towards it. That goes to show that "evil" and its antithesis "good" are subjective. In the universe actions are not "good" or "evil" of themselves, they are actions. There has to be a context for an action to be given a description. Hence it's subjective. We label actions as "good" or "evil" because of a value system, a subjective value system.

 

The "context" is the human condition, and good/evil actions within that specific construct...

defining the parameters of subjectivity with infinitely broad terms such as "in the universe" is meaningless, as subjectivity surrounds personal (human) interpretation.

 

Bubble-headed nincompoopery. I could do whatever I'd like to your daughter, and you would be unable to declare those actions either good or evil, and convince anyone.

 

The most important thing in life that's everything needing in it, it's just to have the strong philosophically base.

 

Exactly.

 

Exactly.

 

Exactly.

 

The problem still exists for you. You have to reference an action or a set of actions before you can describe them as “good” or “evil”. If A acts on B and C observes them then C can describe them as “good” or “evil” or not give such a description to them?

Let’s say that A is a human and B is a nail. A hits B with a hammer. Is the action of A good or evil? How do you know?

Now let’s say A is a human and B is a human. A hits B with a hammer. Is the action of A good or evil? How do you know?

Let’s go further.

A hits B with a hammer. B is sitting alone on a park bench reading a newspaper. Is A’s action good or evil? How do you know?

A hits B with a hammer. B was about to plunge a knife into A’s chest before A stopped him with a hammer blow. Is A’s action good or evil? How do you know?

Can “good” or “evil” exist as universal abstracts? My argument is that they can’t. My reasoning is that both are concepts invented by humans, therefore humans have to be able to identify and classify occurrences or actions as good or evil based on a number of assigned factors.

Is there a concept of “good” floating around the universe? Is there a concept of “evil” in the universe? I am saying no, there isn’t.

I contend that it is not possible to categorise “good” or “evil” as abstract concepts, they must be related to actions, events, occurrences and I’d go so far as to say that those actions, events and occurrences must have a human cause which allows the descriptor to be assigned. A natural catastrophe has dire results for humans but it isn’t labelled as “evil”. If you think that then you’re not progressing past a sort of animism or simple superstition. Next you’ll be arguing for human sacrifice to appease the gods.

I’d like someone to demolish my argument, please, it’s the only way I’ll be able to improve my own understanding.

 

The will to truth, which tempt us more than a bold step, it is
well-known truth, which is still spoken with all the philosophers
reverence - that was presenting the issues for us to have this will to truth! What
strange, sinister, noteworthy questions! Long stretches, this is
history - and yet it seems that she has just begun. What is
wonder if we finally become distrustful, lose patience,
turn away impatiently? If we, in turn, learn from this Sphinx
to ask questions? Who is actually the one who offers us this question? That
in fact we want the "truth"? - Indeed, the long holiday gave us a
faced with the question about the reason for this desire, yet have not stopped completely
to another, even more profound. We asked about the value of the will.
Suppose we want the truth - why it is better not lie? Doubts? Even
ignorance? The problem of whether the value of truth has appeared to us or we approached the
this problem? Who among us is Oedipus? Who is Sphinx? Right, this is a
interview questions and question marks. And if anyone believes that at the end
We all will seem as if this problem has never been
posed as if for the first time we saw her, drew her attention,
ventured into it? For this there is a risk, and may be greater than the risk of not
there.

Friedrich Nietzsche. Beyond Good and Evil

 

You'd rather be dead than find out.

They don't have to, because they are universal realities, irrespective of the impropriety of any human abstractions.

 

You're facing the problem of universals. Welcome to the problem.