Necessary Evil?

[Samuari]

In her essay "What Good Is Evil" Betty Streett writes: "Without evil there would be no choice. We would be God's ‘good' marionettes, dancing on strings to God's tune. Without evil, there would be no challenge, we'd never grow and develop and learn. Without it there would be no courage, no compassion. Without it there would be no opportunity to make choices and experience consequences, no chance to discover who we are, to fight against odds, to stand where we have withstood everything. There would be no opportunity to show great love by giving up our lives for our family, our friends, our faith."

This is one of the most thought-provoking paragraphs that I've read in a long time. She steers clear of the duality error of equating evil with good, but does maintain that evil can enhance good. She also maintains that good and evil are real things, and not relative concepts that shift or change depending on the observer. By applying the classical definition of evil, "the lack of a due good", it is seen that evil depends on good for its existence, and not vice/versa.

Which brings me to my quandary: Is evil really necessary?

 

[Fleshmachine]

No, but it's fun.

 

[lavender]

 

[Samuari]

[QUOTE

It's quite interesting to ponder. But I do believe that without evil, we would not be able to define or recognize good.

So, do you think that they are mutually dependent? That they require each other for existence?

 

[Todd]

Samuari I think you been hanging out in my threads to long

 

[Laurel]

Define evil.

Define good.

I think that for every viewpoint, there exists and equal and opposite viewpoint. If I adore chocolate, there exists another person who detests it to the same degree. However, I think labels like "good" and "evil" are human inventions, and thus are highly subjective. For example, we would all agree with the blanket statement Murder is Wrong. But many support the Death Penalty. Many cheer when the Good Guy murders the Bad Guy at the end of the movie. Murder is Wrong, unless the victim "deserved it". Murderers are Evil, unless they have a good reason.

While I have opinions of what's "right" and "wrong", I think the universe is essentially value-neutral.

 

[Samuari]

Samuari I think you been hanging out in my threads to long

NOPE

 

[TinaG13]

Samuari I think you been hanging out in my threads to long

Yea Todd, this one does seem like one that you would have posted....lol

Hmmmmm, I think without evil, we probably wouldn't really know what is good, but would it really be necessary to know?
I mean, if every thing were good, everyone would be happy and content and I don't think comparisons would be needed anyway.

 

[lavender]

 

[Mustang Sally]

I think comparisons are inevitable.

A sexual analogy: With nothing to compare it to, I thought sex with the first guy I slept with was pretty damn good. By now I know it was mediocre at best.

If the things we now commonly think of as "evil" (like murder, etc.) didn't exist, then our degrees-of-goodness scale would shift, and some of the things that are now just less good would become our standard of evil.

Don't go to church every Sunday? You're evil!
Forgot to send your mother a mother's day card? Evil!

 

[Fleshmachine]

So you're saying good and evil are relative.

 

[Samuari]

Define evil.

Define good.


While I have opinions of what's "right" and "wrong", I think the universe is essentially value-neutral.

In the first post I did use the clasical defination of evil "the lack of a due good". In other words, "good" is defined as something that is compleat, has all its parts, or functioning the way it is suposed to. It be comes "evil" when something is unfinished, or missing parts, or is not woeking the way it is supposed to. In the same way, in Physics you do not think of "cold" but rather how "unhot" an object is, or "dark" has no meaning but rather "unlight".

Do you really believe that all values are sujective. That there is no objective standard. that what each person thinks or feels about a thing or action defines its essential rightness? In that univeress, we could be decorating Tim McVey insead of exicuting him.

[Edited by Samuari on 05-13-2001 at 02:06 PM]

 

[Mustang Sally]

Ponder the term "necessary evil". What's an example of a necessary evil? A little white lie to avoid hurting someone's feelings - would you call that a necessary evil?

 

[TinaG13]

A sexual analogy: With nothing to compare it to, I thought sex with the first guy I slept with was pretty damn good. By now I know it was mediocre at best.

Wanna know something really fucked up? The first guy I ever slept with, turned out to be the best lover I've ever had and I didn't even know it until it was too late......

 

[DevilMayCare]

Spirituality, psychology and philosophy all attempt to make sense of the world in which we live. It is important to recognize that it isn't possible to consider subjects such as the existence of evil either before or outside our experience with them in the world we occupy. Philosophical musings over what it might be like to live without evil are beside the point since it exists and will surely continue to do so as long as humans occupy this planet. Of course, we also have the opportunity to appreciate goodness and kindness that also exist in our world. Evil is necessary because it exists. Goodness is necessary because it exists. That seems pretty simple to me.

That religions encourage us to strive for the good is fine, so long as they don't slip into the fantasy of their own self-righteousness in their fervent efforts to eliminate the sins of the unredeemed.

Frankly, I prefer Eastern philosophy's perspective on the subject as represented by the Taoist symbol for the Yin and Yang.

http://www.beta.dorsai.org/~walts/yy_3k.gif
http://www.beta.dorsai.org/~walts/yy_3k.gif

You will note that a dot of black resides in the center of the white shape, while a dot of white resides in the center of the black shape. And note that the shapes are entwined with one another, both contributing to creation of the whole. What more enlightened way is there to consider the dualities of good and evil, or of the masculine and feminine principles? Of course, the Chinese have been reflecting on these things for five thousand years, so one might imagine they would have some useful insights.

 

[WriterDom]

Kahlil Gibran

On Good & Evil
And one of the elders of the city said, "Speak to us of Good and Evil."

And he answered:

Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil.

For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?

Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters.

You are good when you are one with yourself.

Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not evil.

For a divided house is not a den of thieves; it is only a divided house.

And a ship without rudder may wander aimlessly among perilous isles yet sink not to the bottom.

You are good when you strive to give of yourself.

Yet you are not evil when you seek gain for yourself.

For when you strive for gain you are but a root that clings to the earth and sucks at her breast.

Surely the fruit cannot say to the root, "Be like me, ripe and full and ever giving of your abundance."

For to the fruit giving is a need, as receiving is a need to the root.

You are good when you are fully awake in your speech,

Yet you are not evil when you sleep while your tongue staggers without purpose.

And even stumbling speech may strengthen a weak tongue.

You are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps.

Yet you are not evil when you go thither limping.

Even those who limp go not backward.

But you who are strong and swift, see that you do not limp before the lame, deeming it kindness.

You are good in countless ways, and you are not evil when you are not good,

You are only loitering and sluggard.

Pity that the stags cannot teach swiftness to the turtles.

In your longing for your giant self lies your goodness: and that longing is in all of you.

But in some of you that longing is a torrent rushing with might to the sea, carrying the secrets of the hillsides and the songs of the forest.

And in others it is a flat stream that loses itself in angles and bends and lingers before it reaches the shore.

But let not him who longs much say to him who longs little, "Wherefore are you slow and halting?"

For the truly good ask not the naked, "Where is your garment?" nor the houseless, "What has befallen your house?"

 

[Laurel]

Re: Kahlil Gibran

On Good & Evil
And one of the elders of the city said, "Speak to us of Good and Evil."

And he answered:

Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil.

For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?

Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters.

That is my all-time favorite Kahlil Gibran passages. Thank you for posting it.

 

[Samuari]

Re: Re: Kahlil Gibran

On Good & Evil
And one of the elders of the city said, "Speak to us of Good and Evil."

And he answered:

Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil.

For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?

Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters.

That is my all-time favorite Kahlil Gibran passages. Thank you for posting it.

But what does it mean. I'm sorry, but I need stuff laid out for me, or draw a picture. Kahlil Gibran is excelent poetry but not very good philosphy. I guess I'm just kinda dence.

<exit stage left singing The Scarecrow's Song>

 

[DevilMayCare]

On Good & Evil...

That is my all-time favorite Kahlil Gibran passages. Thank you for posting it.

But what does it mean. I'm sorry, but I need stuff laid out for me, or draw a picture. Kahlil Gibran is excelent poetry but not very good philosphy. I guess I'm just kinda dence...

I don't know whether you're serious Samurai or simply playing a philosophical word game with us. Your initial post ended with...

Which brings me to my quandary: Is evil really necessary?

Do you want to know what evil means? Or do you want to know whether its "really necessary?"

Me thinks you're a frustrated Talmudic scholar who's run out of angels to count on the end of your...

I think I'll find something worthwhile to do with my time and go watch some NBA basketball.

PS - If your serious about this, give me your reaction to the Taoist perspective on good and evil.

2. Abstraction

When beauty is abstracted
Then ugliness has been implied;
When good is abstracted
Then evil has been implied.

So alive and dead are abstracted from nature,
Difficult and easy abstracted from progress,
Long and short abstracted from contrast,
High and low abstracted from depth,
Song and speech abstracted from melody,
After and before abstracted from sequence.

The sage experiences without abstraction,
And accomplishes without action;
He accepts the ebb and flow of things,
Nurtures them, but does not own them,
And lives, but does not dwell.

http://www.chinapage.com/gnl.html

 

[Laurel]

Re: Re: Re: Kahlil Gibran

On Good & Evil
And one of the elders of the city said, "Speak to us of Good and Evil."

And he answered:

Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil.

For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?

Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters.

That is my all-time favorite Kahlil Gibran passages. Thank you for posting it.

But what does it mean. I'm sorry, but I need stuff laid out for me, or draw a picture. Kahlil Gibran is excelent poetry but not very good philosphy. I guess I'm just kinda dence.

<exit stage left singing The Scarecrow's Song>

LOL! Well, what it means to me (and I'm dense too, so I could be totally wrong here) is that desperate situations can drive 'good' people to do horrible things. The vast majority of 'evil' acts are not committed by the Timothy McVeighs & Ted Bundys of the world - they're committed by regular Joes & Janes. By you and me. People who steal, lie, or murder out of desperation, not because they enjoy the act or feel compelled to harm others.

We like to think of thieves & murderers as horrible sadists borne of satan without consciences or feelings. We like to think that we could never commit such acts because we have good intentions. Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Or so they say. (Who are 'they' anyhow?)

 

[Samuari]

Yes I'm serious, just don't talk in circles. Gibran never gets anywhere, talks arround the issue, says that he is answering it, but never comes right out and says anything. I seem to have a reputation for being subtile, I'm not. want my attention, hit me with a ball bat. Want to eat with me, order pizza. want to fuck me, get naked. Same thing about the Toaist's perpective. Just come out and tell me, don't talk arround the subject, don't give long drawen out metaphores, tell me.

 

[Never]

Is evil really necessary?

No, but believing in evil and having the choice to do evil is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Something never this way comes.

 

[Samuari]

It occurred to me in the odd moments just after I awakened, that CS Lewis' "space" trilogy is kinda about this, specificly Perlanda, where he explores the creation myth by imagining a world where "Adam" and "Eve" are tempted, but do not fall. Evil is present but not sucessful. But its existence is still necessary.

DevilMayCare, about now you are saying "Ha! no long drawn out metaphores? Nearly the whole lexicon of CS Lewis is one metaphore after another". Yep, but there is little doubt about where Lewis stands on any isue that he addresses.

 

[Ally C]

All aboard!

Define evil.

Define good.


While I have opinions of what's "right" and "wrong", I think the universe is essentially value-neutral.

In the first post I did use the clasical defination of evil "the lack of a due good". In other words, "good" is defined as something that is compleat, has all its parts, or functioning the way it is suposed to. It be comes "evil" when something is unfinished, or missing parts, or is not woeking the way it is supposed to. In the same way, in Physics you do not think of "cold" but rather how "unhot" an object is, or "dark" has no meaning but rather "unlight".

Do you really believe that all values are sujective. That there is no objective standard. that what each person thinks or feels about a thing or action defines its essential rightness? In that univeress, we could be decorating Tim McVey insead of exicuting him.

I think Timothy McVey might well be good, but Timothy McVeigh, from what I can gather, is 'evil' .

You miss the point that the universe is essentially value-neutral, everything else has been made up and is entirely subjective with respect to ideas of 'good' and 'evil'. You seem to be conflating 'values' (as in 'human values', or 'morals') with 'values' (as in 'scientific constants'). It doesn't work like that. There is a consensus about various rights and wrongs, but if you forever stop the train [of intellectual thought] at this juncture, you'll find that you've arrived at a 'destination' which impedes subjective travel for a lot of people on board. In this metaphor you'd be 'the government', deciding how far everyone is allowed to travel before stopping the train [in this case a train of thought]. Do you really want to limit the outlook of others to such an extent? Perhaps not, but I thought I'd alert you to the fact that offering a definition of 'good' [and / or 'evil'] which has objective meaning in the way you describe does seem rather totalitarian, dare I say 'communist'? Objective facts have absolutely no function in deciding what constitutes good and evil. By all means be objective, but you'll eventually find that you're exercising a form of cultural imperialism which many will find 'evil' by default.

'Evil' isn't necessary. It just is. Go figure [some more!]

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I argue that good and evil are the same thing and that only a western-oriented world-view tries to separate them. I am hot, or I am cold, but it is still a temperature measurement. No one holds their temperature constant and so it would follow that one's morality cannot be constant.