I have two questions. The first is:
“How do you determine whether something is good or bad?”

But I’m actually more interested in the second question, which applies directly to the topic of "measuring” good and evil:
“How do you determine the degree?”

That is, how do you determine which of two evil things is the worst, or which of two good things is the best.


Do you plug values into an equation to reach a result?
Do you have a little voice in your head that you listen to?
Do you depend on a divinity to tell you?
Do you base it on the “majority rule”?
Do you have a list of good things and bad things that you look it up in? (In this case, how did you get the list?)
Do you just “feel it in your bones”?

I stay away from ethics and morals because to me its subjective. But I trust Life when I make the call. and by life I mean the life in me. that thing that gives you unrest or peace. and I still believe there are some universal evils and goods, but then that too boils down to where the person's mind is at the moment. since its impossible for every single person to be at the same mindset at the same time. I dunno

well I don't know if I helped at all. but good luck, tell me how it goes :)

The extent of harm caused.

And I mean the EXTENT... the long term...

I don't need an onboard computer to reach an answer using an equation...

Which little voice? I have a committee...

Divinity? As in divining water? Nah.... I trust my Knowing.

A list? Am I brain dead? Common sense... and the basic rules of sharing space is all the rules I need.

I just ...."KNOW".

An individual viewing from the "good" vs. "bad" perspective, will draw from the sum total of his/her own life experiences. Good/Bad will be determined by the self-invented laws of the universe revolving around that particular individual. If a particular individual believes that all will be judged by his/her god exactly as was written in his/her religious doctrine, he/she will refer to said doctrine for proof.



There is no unit of measure. Nothing to go on at any particular moment except the sum total of an individual's experience thus far (at that current moment in time). Unless the individual only referenced religious text and viewed all experience from an absolute static perspective, would the "measure" even be close to consistent.

Imho, the "average" person tends to judge "good" and "evil" by how it feels (to the body, rather than being aware of the "total" being when judging what "feels" good or bad)

I do not believe in "good" or "bad" necessarily.......but rather what is beneficial and detrimental to the emotional/mental/spiritual/physical growth of a person/all persons.

I look at things this way, if it is so horrible that even I wouldn't do it, it's probably bad.

Actually, I know we've all heard the saying, "it's all good," well we of course know this cannot be true. The converse can be true though, it can "all be evil." I mean most "good" or "altruistic" things that people do are self serving. They are things that we do to feel good about ourselves, and maybe elevate our position or standing in the community. It is extremely rare to find an actual "good deed." You might as well run around with Diogonese (I know that's gotta be spelled wrong) while he's looking for his "honest man."

I do not understand how you feel that no one actually does "good deeds" because it makes them feel good.....so therefore it is "not good" because it is self serving..........

Should doing something for another NOT make you feel good, feel connected to the world around you, feel like you are capable of making a difference??

And I'm sure that the person on the receiving end feels good because someone decided to help.

It is a natural thing, do "good" and you feel "good". I consider "good" to be beneficial, and "bad" to be detrimental.......so if you do something beneficial for another, you are going to benefit.....however if you cause detriment to another....then you take away from yourself.

What about do that which causes no harm to self or others?

If one consciously keeps that at the fore of their doings.... the rest is redundant.

I try not to clutter my mind with such considerations. If I'm being charged by a rabid dog, I'm going to shoot it; that doesn't mean I hate dogs or consider them "evil". I don't consider rabid dogs "evil".

If the dog is leaving me alone, I don't necessarily consider it "good". If the dog is being cute and friendly, I don't necessarily consider it "good". It's just a dog.

To make a decision between "two evil things" or "two good things" is over-cogitation, in my opinion. One would have to be holding in one's mind already a preconceived idea of what constitutes "good" or "evil", instead of seeing the situation merely for what it is.



None of the above, except perhaps the "feel it in your bones" part. I tend to pity those who have to stop and think before deciding whether they are happy or unhappy.

I hope this was helpful. yours in Chaos, Scarlett

To me, it's pretty much common sense.

Good is positive and productive, bad is negative and destructive. I use my inate intuition to decide which is which.



In some cases I do. But I think for the most part it's pretty obvious what is good and what is not.



Well, based on my above definitions, the more positive and constructive something is, the more 'good' it represents. The more negative and destructive something is, the more 'bad' it is.

My morals are totally subjective, but that's perfectly fine because I only apply them to me.

I pass no judgments on others. If they are doing negative destructive things I don't 'judge' them to be evil. I might judge them to be stupid.

If they do negative and destructive things to me, I may return the favor.

I don't believe in turning the other cheek in the face of destructive forces.

If turning the other cheek has any 'value' at all, it simply means not to take belated and premeditated revenge.

I don't go looking for trouble. On the contrary I'll steer clear of it, or leave in its presense (unless I'm taking a stand to defend someone else).

But I won't even defend a trouble maker. Take Jesus for example. He went and pissed off the Romans. Well, don't come to me for help after you've done such a foolish thing!

I won't back up a fool.

Harm no one.

Blessed be.

The Wiccans have the highest morals on the planet. They have automatic tickets to seventh heaven (assuming they actually follow their creed).

Everyone else is in deep sh't.

show me some evil and i'll tell ya how good it was!

ba-da-bump........!

I guess I basically rely on my own intuition about what I should and should not be doing. That would qualify as a conscious? I dont know. Of course the real world can be fraught with ambiguity and things are obviously not going to be black and white in terms of wrong and right. I have also purposely and willfully taken the wrong course or done something that I felt awful about later. It happens.

moral universalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

One of my grandmothers used to tell me if I ever met a man who was handsome, smiling, witty and amazingly charming who smelled like a dog I should run because he was the devil.

Funny old wives tales eh?

Honestly I think each of us knows evil instinctively.

nvm, :D

What is right and wrong - good and evil? This is a question, humans have been contemplating as far back as recorded history.

What is good and evil, was often addressed through the morals that surrounded the religious beliefs of people.

When a society consisted of single, or very similar, religious beliefs, it wasn’t unusual for a leader to have influence over what would end up as both “moral” and “legal” code. Obviously the purpose was to dictate laws that would appeal to the masses, through their religious beliefs. Thus legal codes and religious morals became deeply intertwined until, over time, entire cultures adopted a moral direction.

This is clearly what we see as we consider the works of many past philosophers such as Plato, Descartes, St. Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, Kant and even Leibnitz. So completely entrenched in the ‘cultural’ values, that religions of their times inspired, that they were never, truly, able to separate humans from the empirical value that a supreme creator bestowed. All of them saw humans in some form of dualistic existence.

What does this have to do with right and wrong? If we see ourselves as a creation with a status much superior to that of any other living creature, then we are certain to value our own opinion above what nature has to say.

How often can any human look at nature and say, “that pig was wrong, it should not be biting other pigs” or what about “that cactus is evil, because its thorns may injure an animal brushing against it” or “how absolutely despicable that lions must be so evil as to kill other animals to quench their blood lust”.

Sound silly? Of course it is, because nature has no right or wrong, it seems to do what is necessary to maintain an ecological balance, with no regard to right or wrong.

Does that mean that nature holds no regard for life? Would you assign human emotional attributes to nature? People have, and in many cultures the world over, nature is worshiped as the supreme creator, under various names with various beliefs attached.

We have learned a very difficult and sad lesson; nature with all its living creatures has an ecological balance, and only humans seem capable of destroying that balance. However, we have never been able to determine what our role in the ecological balance really is. In spite of that, we still insist that there is good and evil and right and wrong.

Since humans seem to be the only creature capable of intentional destruction, it seems only fair that humans should be stuck with trying to understand how they need to correct this flaw in their actions.

So what is right and what wrong? Nature is right, it can exist without us and in fact has not a care as to whether we survive or not.

With us, nature is put at risk and that which we depend on for our existence,the echo system of the earth, we destroy. Humans, are wrong and what’s wrong is with humans is our thinking.

Our thinking has effects on our actions and our actions come out as right or wrong; good for nature (good for humans) bad for nature (self-destruction)!

Strip that idea down and you will discover that our thinking, as it has been inspired by past beliefs, has caused humans to develop a serious defective process of thought. Our thinking is wrong!

What has value is that which will support the continuance of our species; this planet. With the least amount of interference required, by humans, nature will assure its survival.

What is good is anything that does no harm to that which we depend on for our future and the future of our species.

The rest, is us deciding that each of us is no more valuable than any other living thing.

Perhaps our job in the scheme of things will someday prove to be that which keeps the planet from universal destruction from outside forces. That will take the mental capacity that only humans currently have, perhaps that is how we fit into the ecological balance.

If each human is considered at least as valuable as every other living creature, by every other human then to what could we possibly assign a value of right or wrong, good or bad?

The extent of harm caused.

And I mean the EXTENT... the long term...

I don't need an onboard computer to reach an answer using an equation...

Which little voice? I have a committee...

Divinity? As in divining water? Nah.... I trust my Knowing.

A list? Am I brain dead? Common sense... and the basic rules of sharing space is all the rules I need.

I just ...."KNOW".


Aw, the committee. Sounds like that show" Family Fued". Actually, though that is like two committees. "Survey says"...

Though I agreed one hundred percent with the rest of ur post........I have to disagree that other animals are capable of intentional destruction, maybe not on a large scale, but dogs for one will intentionally destroy things out of spite. I dog sat for my ex's boss at once, and it tore up stuff all over the floor and then hid under my bed to continue the mess there.....all because we left it home alone for a few hours. I'm sure primates are capable of the same.........but anyhoo, I'm not sure that it has much of an effect on the truth of ur post.

You are correct there, in fact in studies of primates (in captivity) they will exhibit VERY human like behavior and this will include spite, anger and insistence on destructive behavior. The reasons can vary but they also tend to hold grudges in the long term. A thought pattern only imagined to be associated with humans until these observations of primate behavior took place. To me its not surprising at all.