Hijacked from "Forgiving People" as it seemed appropriate to do so

By my way of thinking it is possible to have both good and bad. If not, what is the point of a consience?
I don't know what makes people bad. Upbringing, a desire to feel bigger and stronger than someone else. But for each and every decision we make we choose to be good or bad.
I'm sure I botched this insensibly but it's 4:15am and my mind is working faster than my body

I really feel let one's conscience be one's control after all why should stabbing in the back be rewarded with forgiveness?

Everyone makes minor mistakes, snap judgements, sometimes repeating something one shouldn't.
But some people plan a nasty malicious attack either verbally or physically, where is the mistake in that? its deliberate action. have suffered from 3 malicious cows in my time, two I have had to endure for family's sake, but they have been restrained by the family. The other one got publicly humiliated and seen for the lying malicious bitch she is, and no way is she welcome anywhere near me, and it would be foolish of me to offer friendship and bloody stupid to forgive and forget.

in my veiw people are both if u look down your life, there are some people that think u have done good and some people that you would have upset so those are gonna think of u as bad, even when u dont do things on purpose its just what happens an outcome of a situation that you never really had any control over in the first place!! but that just my opinion xx

I think all of us have a 'dark' side. Most if not all conscience is formed in childhood usually by parents as far as right and wrong, learning to share etc.
Again, in true Pagan form, it's a matter of balance.
We can get angry, we can laugh and we can cry, emotional reposnes to outside stimuli or sometimes inner reponses when one thinks about things that make us mad, laugh, and cry.

Sometimes, emotions are formed because of betrayal after betrayal to the point of losing it. That's when depression or homocide creeps in. (O.K, so it's a little over simplified) After a hectic day dealing with people, I can fully understand why someone goes 'postal' and stands on a roof top somewhere taking pot shots and people.

I have imagined all sorts of nasty things happen to my so called enemies and have spent a lot of time thinking of ways of getting back. But, after awhile, the feeling comes over me that tells me the whole thing is simply not worth it and mentally blot that person out of my life. All I achieved was allowing that person to control how I felt.

Some have quick tempers and are quick to anger of the littlest things and some can get physical because it shows power. In some, backing down from a fight is seen as sissy or a 'girly man' as one stupid governor from California says a lot.

I think there are a lot of factors that sort of infuence us. People who rape are often victems of rape. What we know, what we have grown up with plays a huge factor on how we react. Sometimes someone breaks the chain. But sometimes you can look at it and it comes down to 'my daddy was a rapist, his daddy was a rapist.'
So this is why I believe there is good and bad in us. We are born with a clean slate and where we go from there is governed by our choices.

Elmfire I would like to have you expand on your opinion. You said...


See I believe we are in control of our outcomes even if we aren't in control of our situation. And I am unclear as to what you believe we don't have control on

My view is that people are neither good nor bad, it is their actions that are either good or bad. People do not have good or bad in them, good or bad do not exist in themselves, but are only descriptions of particular actions.

People always have a choice about whether to commit an action or not, sometimes the choice is difficult, but there is always a choice nevertheless. If someone commits a bad act it is because they have chosen to commit a bad act, saying that someone commits this act because they themselves are bad lets them off the hook in a way. Circumstances, background etc. may influence the difficulty of the choice but do not let a person off the hook from taking full responsibility for their actions. It is the action itself, not the circumstances behind it, that will have an effect on others. So called 'mitigating circumstances' will not lessen the pain an action causes to others, so why should it lessen the responsibility and consequences for the person commiting the action?

Actions have consequences and a suitable price to pay (i.e. one that is equal in value to the results of the action) is necessary. As for forgiveness, I really don't see why anybody should be expected to forgive anyone else. Attonement is what is important, not forgiveness.

I don't think that anyone is exclusively good or bad but then I also don't think that it is as simple as polarising it like that. What does "good" or "bad" mean in the end?

My view is that good and bad are ethical concepts created by society to define what is deemed to be acceptable or not within that society. What is acceptable in one society may be bad within another society and vice versa. There is no automatic good and bad, good and bad are not forces operating in the universe. Societies define for themselves what is good and what is bad for that particular society. Whether an action is good or bad within a society can change over time depending on what that society deems to be good or bad.

Makes sense. But if you look at the extreme and use this statement on a totalitarian state where grassing up your neighbour to the thought police would be a good thing a traitor would basically be a good guy while someone trying to defend freedom would be evil. Doesn't seem to feel right.

Yeah, what Whitgar said, really.

Baldur - I was actually just puzzling over the law aspect as well, but I think the feeling I'm getting is that law and good/evil (to use the words - I don't really like them, but there you go) aren't necesarily tied to law, or vice versa. For example, drug use is illegal, but most people would consider it distateful, not evil. Laws don't always reflect the ethics of a people - particularly in a fascist state, they represent only the ethics of the rulers. Those rulers may in turn fit the description of evil for most of the populace.

In general, I'd say evil in our society is mostly a lack of empathy or conscience - most things we'd call evil involve harming others, so the less a person is inclined to think about (or care about) the feelings of others, the more "evil" they seem. The most "evil" people in history tended to be sociopaths - people who could perform or order horrendous acts without a second thought like hitler, pol lot, stalin, or mao.

I definetkly beleive in the light and dark sides of a personality. There's always the voice of your id going nuts within.

I couldn't agree more.

It still leaves us with the question though, how the willing subjects who follow their leaders unquestioned are to be judged. Are they evil?




This also makes sense but I believe that some of the most horrendous crimes have been comitted in the name of the best ideals. This is logical in as much as a higher "sacrifice" can be justified for a high goal.

But even people like Stalin or Mao who ordered millions to be killed can't be all evil. I think it is also a means to keeping the mind at rest to believe that they are some freaks of nature, the kind of people who after a successful day of genocide would on the way home drown little kittens before they have their baby-meat-dinner. Because otherwise we had to acknowledge that they are just like us and that a little Mussolini might also rest in our own hearts.

It doesn't feel right to you because you are looking at it using the framework of good and bad that has been adopted by the society you live in. On the other hand a person in such a society may, based on the ethical framework of that society, view their reporting someone to the police as being a good act of turning in an evil traitor to the revolution (or suchlike).

Then we have the terrorist/freedom fighter issue. The French Resistance, the ANC, the IRA, Al-Qaida, the fighters in the American Revolution etc. Whether someone is a freedom fighter or a terrorist all depends on what ethical and moral framework they are judged by.

When looked at objectively, there can be no definitive good or evil, only what a society (or a person themself) deems to be good or evil. Since none of us live in isolation, what our society deems to be good and evil is enforced so as to keep order.

Rather than good and evil, the law probably reflects good and bad. Society considers speeding to be bad but not usually evil. Similarly with illegal drug use, most people would consider it to be bad (but not evil).



Then we have Atom bombs dropped on Japanese cities by a democracy. And the bombing of Cologne, Dresden, Berlin etc. Democracies don't usually deliberately kill vast numbers of their own civilians on mass (probably because, unlike dictators, democratic politicians rely on the votes of their own civilians and killing large numbers of its own citizens wouldn't be much of a vote winner), but they do it to other countries' civilians if it suits their purposes. Whether they give it a second thought or not, or whether a lot of hand wringing precedes the action, matters not to the victims.

Whether something is good, or something is bad, depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on.

Totally true and that's what I meant by saying that some of the most horrendous crimes have been comitted in the name of the best ideals.

It still doesn't FEEL right, though.



Yep! Agreed. There was an interesting case in the news last week. It's a bit extreme but I think it illustrates the point still quite well. Italy sentenced about ten former soldiers of the 16.Waffen SS Panzer Grenadier Division Reichsfuehrer SS. The men were sentenced for having killed civilian hostages in retaliation for guerilla attacks.

Guerillas are banned by international law and the land war convention of Haag is very straightforward in that point. There were even some international laws at the time that allowed this kind of action as determent and protection. And last but not least those soldiers were under strict orders.

Now, over sixty years later, guerillas are still banned by international law yet those guerillas from then all received decorations and those men who acted within the law and according to their orders are in fear of being sent to prision.

Time also seems to be a deciding fact when judging good and bad. If your interest group is still holding the power in their hand you will remain good for as long as is beneficial to them and if not you might very well become evil in retrospect.

I think that this fact is very disturbing and should make it difficult for people to make a decision for action.

Following our logic those SS men were good then and are evil now. I don't think they were good then, just doesn't feel right. Many people of the time would have seen it the same way.



Good and Evil are manmade concepts, I agree.

Sometimes I romanticise and I wonder if there isn't some universal understanding for good and for evil. I mean something that comes with every human being by birth. I think of an example like a mother starving her baby (without a reason) as being universally seen as evil.

In the simple and generally accepted understandings of "good" and "bad" then I'm sure that we all have something of both.

As for the ability to control the balance of the two opposing aspects of self then I would say that we all have the ability to attempt to control them but also that we often fail to do so for the very simple reason that we're all very far from perfect.

That doesn't of course diminish our personal responsibility to continue in the attempt. Does it?

That is of course said without any attempt to delve into the complications caused by individual perception of "good" and "bad", our individual perception of "self" as integrally composite with "good" and "bad" and our perceptions of "good" and "bad" within others as being based upon our often limited knowledge, understanding and perceptions of the motives of others.

Another added complication to a discussion of these area's of "perception" of course might be the accuracy or otherwise of our own understanding of good and bad within ourselves along with our true underlying motives and reasons as opposed to our percieved understanding of self. Maybe we don't always understand ourselves quite as well as we would like to think that we do let alone understand others.

Just wondered how general this generally accepted understanding of good and evil is. I agree with Whitgar and say that the perception of what is good and what is evil is dependent on the society you live in and other social factors. It has the nasty aftertaste though, that you'll have to conform in order to be a good person.

I once believed in a universal basic belief of god and evil but looking at the different people with different customs around the world I begin to change my mind.



No, it doesn't. I believe that everyone should attempt to follow their path and do what they think is right.



Good point. From looking at myself as much as at other people I think that there are very few people who allow for their self-image to be tainted by accepting that they have behaved truly badly and in turn most things that are beneficial for the self are perceived as "good". And if it becomes apparent that an action has had bad consequences then there will be enough justifications to make it ok again. Maybe this is a necessary psychological process to keep sane and to keep relying on your own judgements but, hey, there it is.

Also, there is no real control mechanism within the self. It is in Western societies accepted that you can use self-defence from someone who is causing you an unlawful, immediate danger by applying justifyable force (up to and including the death of the attacker). Let's say you are out with your girlfriend in the park and some guy comes with a gun and tried to kill you, you grab something and smash it on his head. The something turned out to be a rock and the guy is dead. Most people would see this as justifyable.

Now lets say you have given your whole heart to communism and you see that there is a group of kulaks that is keeping the proletariat down. These people are the only thing that stays between a hell-hole where people die of hunger and cold and a socialist heaven where every labourer has his own palace and food will grow on a tree. Those men also start all the wars and turn brother against brother to only further their riches. Wouldn't it there be ok, self-defence really, if you were to actively get rid of some? The consequences of them staying are anyway much more grave and the wonderful result of them being out of the way alone would justify it. And so you send a couple of thousand into the gluags, then some hundred thousand more and in the end you have many million burried alive in Siberia. And this all for the good of the people and the revolution.

But this actually leads us back to the first point that what is good and evil is determined by society. If everybody else also is a good tschekist and sends their richer neighbours away, then you are fine.

It doesn't feel right to you because it goes against your concept of what is good and what is evil. But it may well feel right to those involved in such actions because it is in accordance with their concept of good and evil. Does that mean that your concept of good and evil is the correct one, and a concept of good and evil which is radically different from yours is wrong?

There is "good and evil" as defined by culture and somewhat open to interpretation but without intending to be judgemental at any more than normal humanitarian consciencious level I would definately say that certain actions can always be defined as evil and others as good regardless of culture and individual background.

Some things for me, are quite simply humanitarianly unacceptible.

...and yes, I did say "for me" so I guess that from the perspective of another my comment might be redundant.

I think Whitgar has put it very well. I do not believe goodness or badness is innate. People have the capacity to carry out good deeds or bad deeds. And what is good and bad anyway? So many of our concepts of good and bad have their roots in Christian morality.

As Dave said, it is a matter of personal responsibility......and it doesn't hurt to try to do "good".

mike

I do beleive that evil exists. But not that there is some sentient evil out there that tries to make us evil.
I belive that each and every person has the capacity for either good or evil, and both.

Whether our own personal morality and societal morality are the best judges of what is necessarily good and evil. And sometimes these two moralkity patterns can come into conflict causing the person usually great doubt in their own or societies morality.

But each person has several choices to make and I don't think you can end up severely on one side of the fence unintentionally. But as has been siad above it doesn't hurt to try to do good.

Evil is entirely man-made, evil does not exist in nature, there are no natural manifestations of evil. I think it is definitely possible to be both good and bad, bad could be being selfish, or proud, but not necessarily malicious and murderous. It's probably better to acknowledge it as being light and dark, we have to confront our dark-side, affectively assimilating it into our system 'accepting it' before can truly progress spiritually.

Blessed Be xx

Well if evil is entirely man-made then it does exist in Nature. After all man is as much a part of Nature as daisies and badgers.

Rather good and evil are just values assigned by man to describe actions and rarely exist in themselves as such.

And why associate negative aspects with the dark?

If you think about darkness it is as positive as it is negative.

I think that there might be malevolent forces around. If there are benign ones, I see no reason not to believe that there are dark ones.

I think that some people might be "evil" in the sense of being under the influence of malevolent forces, and that this may be either knowingly or unknowingly. In the same way I believe that some people might be "good".

I also believe that humans are capable of a wide range of actions springing from a whole host of motives. Some of the motives might be pure but the actions questionable, and vice versa.

I think that pure "evil" and pure "good" are very rare (thankfully!) and that most of us are varying shades of grey depending on our background and circumstances. I am aware that labels such as "evil" and "good" are extremely difficult to define, and can seem to rely more on moral context than anything inherent. However, I still believe in their existence.

We all have the capacity for good or bad and it is up to us as an individual to

decide.

Hopefully good will out way the bad but there is always a need for balance, so

therefore the one can not exist without the other.

And what is good to one person may not be good to another, individual views and

beliefs!

So all in all it is not an easy concept to explain in a few words.