Good and Evil or Right and Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter migueltojose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

migueltojose

Guest
I’ve considered that maybe good and evil are derived from right and wrong or good behavior versus bad behavior. Is it conceivable that good and evil don’t really exist in and of themselves but are derivitives?
 
I’ve considered that maybe good and evil are derived from right and wrong or good behavior versus bad behavior. Is it conceivable that good and evil don’t really exist in and of themselves but are derivitives?
Well, IMO right and wrong really don’t have much meaning apart from the concept of good and evil. In Christianity moral evil (sin) is opposition to the will of God, the creator of human morality, aka the “natural law”.

The question is, Is morality relative, IOW a purely human invention, or absolute, an invention of God?
 
Well, IMO right and wrong really don’t have much meaning apart from the concept of good and evil. In Christianity moral evil (sin) is opposition to the will of God, the creator of human morality, aka the “natural law”.

The question is, Is morality relative, IOW a purely human invention, or absolute, an invention of God?
Why does its being a human invention, as opposed to a divine ordinance, make morality relative?
 
I’ve considered that maybe good and evil are derived from right and wrong or good behavior versus bad behavior. Is it conceivable that good and evil don’t really exist in and of themselves but are derivitives?
Good and evil are adjectives, not nouns. As a description of some action they make sense. Trying to turn them into stand-alone entities is an error of reification.

rossum
 
Why does its being a human invention, as opposed to a divine ordinance, make morality relative?
Well, if its an invention its changeable. What standard, other than prevailing opinion of the majority, would set the norm?
 
Good and evil are adjectives, not nouns. As a description of some action they make sense. Trying to turn them into stand-alone entities is an error of reification.

rossum
Rossum:

Actually the Oxford English Dictionary shows the words in both usages, as adjectives and as nouns and mass nouns without reference to any derivation via abstractioning. Of course you understand what mass noun means? It means “uncountable,” like the word, coffee. To say a, “cup of coffee,” does not tell us how many coffee, just that what is in the cup is a multitude.

God bless,
jd
 
I’ve considered that maybe good and evil are derived from right and wrong or good behavior versus bad behavior. Is it conceivable that good and evil don’t really exist in and of themselves but are derivitives?
By convention we call this or that evil or bad if it lacks a perfection which we think it should have. Even in morality we call that act bad which lacks goodness.

In fact that is just the way Thomas Aquinas defines evil. Everything is good in that it exists. But if it lacks a perfection it is evil. So evil is not an existing thing. Even in morality it does not exist. It is simply the absence of a goodness or truth which should be there. Sin should be understood the same way. It is the absence of good behavior, habit, truth, etc. Sin is the absence of a good which should be there in our acts but isn’t because we have turned away from that good. Hope that helps.

👍👍
 
I’ve considered that maybe good and evil are derived from right and wrong or good behavior versus bad behavior. Is it conceivable that good and evil don’t really exist in and of themselves but are derivitives?
Perhaps, if you believe that evil/wrong is the opposite of good/right - counterparts so-to-speak. I don’t think that’s an accurate description/definition.

After God created the heavens and the earth he said “it was good” and after creating humans God said “very good”. I guess what I’m trying to say is that only good exists and evil should be thought of in terms as a willful failure to do good.
 
Perhaps, if you believe that evil/wrong is the opposite of good/right - counterparts so-to-speak. I don’t think that’s an accurate description/definition.

After God created the heavens and the earth he said “it was good” and after creating humans God said “very good”. I guess what I’m trying to say is that only good exists and evil should be thought of in terms as a willful failure to do good.
Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

(emphases added)

rossum
 
Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

(emphases added)
No rational conclusion can be established on isolated snippets from the Bible!

The Creator is the ultimate Source of - but not directly responsible for - all events and situations.
 
No rational conclusion can be established on isolated snippets from the Bible!
No rational conclusion can be established on the entire Bible either, since it contains contradictions. It is essential to take smaller sections that do not contain contradictions in order to gain anything of any use.

I note also that the CCC references “isolated snippets” in many places.

rossum
 
Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

(emphases added)

rossum
Your post isn’t within the context established by the OP.
 
Why does its being a human invention, as opposed to a divine ordinance, make morality relative?
If there is no objective universal standard of moral perfection, then human morality is simply what happens to be convenient to the individual. It might be convenient to me to manipulate or kill another human being if I know that I can get away with it. For a person who is afraid of the consequences it is convenient for that person to conform to societal norms. There is no rational reason to feel guilty about any action; you need only be sad that you got caught. Moral Guilt is just a delusion in a world where humans invent their own standards.

Might makes Right; and the fear of consequence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top