F
FuzzyBunny116
Guest
I vaguely understand the idea of evil being the absence of good. Would anyone like to comment? Or explain how good cannot be the absence of evil?
- Status
T
teachccd
Guest
Can light be the absence of darkness? Is sound the absence of silence? I think in these questions only the opposite choices will work.
M
M-Dent
Guest
You’re question immediately reminded me of some profound words by a Doctor of the Church.
L
Lady_Cygnus
Guest
Wouldn’t Good be the absence of evil and not the other way around? Evil is, afterall, a twisted good. Something evil needs the things good to support it. An evil thing requires good things, but the good doesn’t need the evil.
For example, Murder is spurred by a desire to seek pleasure in someones death. In this case the good pleasure has been warped so that it only appears at the taking of life.
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
What about Neutral.
Some things are are neither good nor are they evil.
If something is not evil it does not autmatically mean that it must be good.
The absence of evil may just be neutral.
F
FightingFat
Guest
Consider famine- undoubtedly an evil, but it is evil for want of some good.
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
Going for a walk up Croagh Patrick is good when done with good intent.
Not going for a walk up Croagh Patrick is not evil.
Going for a walk is neutral.
Not going for a walk up Croagh Patrick is not evil.
Going for a walk is neutral.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The best way to understand this is that it is a proposition developed by Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine, before he became a Christian, was a Manechean. Manacheanism is a form of Persian Dualism, which essentially holds there are two “gods” – a good god and a bad god.
Saint Augustine examined the question in that light – is there a bad god? The answer, of course is no. There is only one God. Where, then is the source of “evil?” The answer is, we are the source, when we turn away from God. Without God’s grace, we sin and do evil things.
Therefore, evil is indeed the absense of good.
C
contramundum7
Guest
The absence of evil is, to me, an inadequate, unclear concept…
Absence implies a mere void… but nature, as someone once said, abhors a vacuum…
Evil is no vacuum. It (Satan) seeks to destroy what is created by God…leaving some “thing” in its place… (damage to the mind, soul, body). And since satan is more intelligent than any of us humans, he wins most of the time (until/unless we learn how best to defeat him… but even then he “wins” a lot… ). That is why we need Jesus (the Mass, the rosary that reveals his life & work… etc.) The devil never wins against Jesus (The Real Presence, etc.). We sin because we are distanced from Jesus… 2 one degree or another… & the devil takes advantage of thate…
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello FuzzyBunny,
Evil can still happen in the presence of good. The good Samaritan is a good example. The victim was treated and cared for which is good. It is evil that it was not the Church leaders, but a Samaritan, that did this.
It is good that the United States government does so much for the poor through welfare programs. Low participation in donations to God through the Church by Catholics, to care for the least of our brothers, even though the poor are greatly taen care of by the State, is still evil.
F
FightingFat
Guest
You obviously haven’t climbed up Croagh Patrick! There’s nothing good about climbing up that mountain, it’s pure evil I tell ya!!
C
Cara_Serrano
Guest
For evil to be the mere absence of good is to imply they have always been coexistent, which is not the case. According to Genesis, it was “all good” at creation. When evil entered the world, it did not come in the form of a mere “absence” of good, but in the form of angelic, intelligent beings with free will choosing to disobey God. Just as “good” has its source in the Person of God, so also “evil” comes to the world through individuals (the fallen angels, Adam and Eve, the rest of us.) Evil has its origins not simply in the absence of good, but in rational beings actively choosing to reject God.
S
Sideline
Guest
Evil is the absence of good the same way that banannas are the absence of apples. They are not even opposites.
One can go through their whole day without doing anything that is good, but it doesn’t follow that they have done anything that was evil either. The absence of good is just that, the absence. Evil is actually a deliberate act or a deliberate lack of action.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Aquinas defined evil as the privation of good, i.e. the absence of a good that ought to be present. But not every absence of good is evil.
newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm
T
thistle
Guest
I would view evil as the rejection of good (God’s Love) and not the absence of good.
C
Cara_Serrano
Guest
No, not every absence of good is evil, but certainly the absence of good gives evil a place to take root.
T
toaslan
Guest
If you approach this question as Thomas did, you approach it from the standpoint of nature. What is the nature of the thing under discussion?
Let us take sight and blindness. When a man is born without eyes, we say he is blind. Do we say that a boulder, which also has no eyes, is blind? (the poet may speak metaphorically this way, but we are being literal).
Why is the man blind and the boulder not blind? Neither can see.
The man is blind because he is deprived of a power which he is designed to have. Men are seeing beings. To be a sightless man is to be deprived of some power natural to man.
The stone is not blind because it is not deprived of anything it has by nature.
Further, notice the word “deprivation” and “deprived.” These signal that to be sighted is the norm for humans; to be sighted is to have actualized that which is designed into man with respect to sight.
To be a sighted man, then, is *to have being *in respect to sight. To be blind is to lack this being: it is to be less in respect to sightedness. (I know this is politically incorrect, but oh well…)
And so with good and evil. To be IS to be good. Any falling short in goodness is a falling short in being. The less good a man is, the less real he is: the less being he has. In so far as he is not good, that far is he less distinguishable from other men, that much less uniquely himself, etc. (Contrary to popular culture.)
To be evil is simply **to be less **in some way. As others have pointed out–it is to be distorted, falsified, diminished in some way. And what is it that is distorted/falsified/diminished? The good, the natural.
To emphasize my point, do you all agree that there is some good even in the Devil? And what might that be?
Let us take sight and blindness. When a man is born without eyes, we say he is blind. Do we say that a boulder, which also has no eyes, is blind? (the poet may speak metaphorically this way, but we are being literal).
Why is the man blind and the boulder not blind? Neither can see.
The man is blind because he is deprived of a power which he is designed to have. Men are seeing beings. To be a sightless man is to be deprived of some power natural to man.
The stone is not blind because it is not deprived of anything it has by nature.
Further, notice the word “deprivation” and “deprived.” These signal that to be sighted is the norm for humans; to be sighted is to have actualized that which is designed into man with respect to sight.
To be a sighted man, then, is *to have being *in respect to sight. To be blind is to lack this being: it is to be less in respect to sightedness. (I know this is politically incorrect, but oh well…)
And so with good and evil. To be IS to be good. Any falling short in goodness is a falling short in being. The less good a man is, the less real he is: the less being he has. In so far as he is not good, that far is he less distinguishable from other men, that much less uniquely himself, etc. (Contrary to popular culture.)
To be evil is simply **to be less **in some way. As others have pointed out–it is to be distorted, falsified, diminished in some way. And what is it that is distorted/falsified/diminished? The good, the natural.
To emphasize my point, do you all agree that there is some good even in the Devil? And what might that be?
T
toaslan
Guest
As to some things being neutral: the morality or immorality of something is determined in intention. It is the intention with which we invest any moment of our life that our goodness or lack thereof in that moment is determined.
Things are neutral in and of themselves–objectively speaking. When things are done or acted upon by humans, the interaction will have morality. Actions/things can be done in God, offered to Him, and then they are highly good; they can be undergone as if by a dumb animal; this is unworthy of the immortal rational animal doing them.
As Congressman Henry Hyde used to remind us, we will be accountable for every idle word, even for every idle silence, when it comes to the fight for the unborn. And the principle applies generally to human life.
Things are neutral in and of themselves–objectively speaking. When things are done or acted upon by humans, the interaction will have morality. Actions/things can be done in God, offered to Him, and then they are highly good; they can be undergone as if by a dumb animal; this is unworthy of the immortal rational animal doing them.
As Congressman Henry Hyde used to remind us, we will be accountable for every idle word, even for every idle silence, when it comes to the fight for the unborn. And the principle applies generally to human life.
D
dbacks5439
Guest
I am an ardent subscriber to the Augustinian school of thought when it comes to evil as being the privation of good, or to say that evil is the absence of good.
For example, what is cold? Can we measure cold? We have units of measurements to measure heat: celsius, fahrenheit, and kelvins. These are used to measure heat. Water at 60 degrees F is colder than water at 80 F. It’s not that former has more cold, but rather less heat. Therefore, cold is simply less heat.
We also cannot measure darkness. Again, we have units to measure light, but not darnkness. Darkness is simply less light.
The choice we have isn’t, “To do good or do evil.” Rather, it is choosing to do good or not. The less good one does, the more evil one becomes. Satan is devoid of all good. Evil does not have a source on and of itself. The existence of evil lies squarely on the absence of good.
For example, what is cold? Can we measure cold? We have units of measurements to measure heat: celsius, fahrenheit, and kelvins. These are used to measure heat. Water at 60 degrees F is colder than water at 80 F. It’s not that former has more cold, but rather less heat. Therefore, cold is simply less heat.
We also cannot measure darkness. Again, we have units to measure light, but not darnkness. Darkness is simply less light.
The choice we have isn’t, “To do good or do evil.” Rather, it is choosing to do good or not. The less good one does, the more evil one becomes. Satan is devoid of all good. Evil does not have a source on and of itself. The existence of evil lies squarely on the absence of good.
T
Thing
Guest
A wonderful fellow, that Leatherman, what an amazing brain!
I heard of a man whose job it was every day to sit on a stone and break small stones into gravel with a hammer, now, he said that every time he hit the stones with the hammer he considered it to be an Our Father.
Again, there is hearsay, that the men, (who were protestant, exclusively), who hammered the rivets on the Titanic cursed the Pope with every hammer blow.
Now the thread title being, Is evil the Absence of Good - consider if hammering is in and of itself good, evil, or neutral.
The next man with a hammer may not be thinking at all, more likely than not…
- Status