Is the model of Good/Evil Dualism Innate?

[IWantGod]

Yes, but these additions do not change the fact that most Christians believe in two separate powers, which is dualism.

Do they? Certainly not Catholics, at least its not a teaching presented in Catholic theology i don’t think. I was taught that evil is a perversion of good, a corruption of creation.

 

[OneSheep]

No, I don’t think dualism is innate. Greek mythology, for example,

Hmmm. Hera?

I don’t really know enough about Greek cosmology to know whether or not they thought of a “power of evil”.

Good and evil definitely exist. I would say both are part of human nature no matter what belief or non-belief system or concept a person holds.

Yes, when we believe in the powers we see them as very real.

Yin yang is the root of Chinese philosophy.

I think that formulation is dualistic, but not in a good/evil sense. What would distinguish would perhaps be to ask a person “are there bad parts of yourself”? Or maybe “are some natural drives bad?”.

 

[PetraG]

Hmmm. Hera?

I don’t really know enough about Greek cosmology to know whether or not they thought of a “power of evil”.

You can tell from their stories that they did not have any characters who were all good or all bad, had none who were all-knowing. They did not interpret the cosmos in a dualistic way. Their stories also present life as a zero-sum game. What helps the Greeks, hurts the Trojans, and the winner will be determined by which side got the most powerful god or gods on their side. They did not have Olympus split up into the “good guys” and the “bad guys.”

 

[OneSheep]

but some beings evidently lack what is good.

Completely so?

Evil is unnatural in that it is merely parasitic

If it is an “is”, then it exists.

Thus anything that undermines a human beings assent to God is evil

If there is an “anything”, then it exists.

evil by itself is nothing at all, it has no power.

If it has no power, then there is no “anything” that undermines the assent to God.

Evil is a perversion of good.

Again, if evil “is”, then it has an existence. Of course, when we talk about the occurrence of evil, the accumulation of events, and perhaps the “power” that a particular evil occurrence has in the world, then we are talking about things that happen, not something of matter or energy, something that has “existence” in the scientific sense.

Is dualism innate? It makes sense if it is so. It seems to be a “default”.

 

[OneSheep]

They did not have Olympus split up into the “good guys” and the “bad guys.”

I see what you mean. The question is, "Did they have a view of the human such that there were “good guys” and “bad guys”? If so, then they had dualistic outlooks.

 

[Vonsalza]

While St. Thomas and others talked about evil being “an absence of good”, Christian theology generally includes belief in some version of a “power of evil”…
Since these labels are applied to something that is real, we can see that the whole idea of evil as an “absence” is not a concept that enters our Western speech.
…elements of this “powers of good vs evil” seems to be pretty evident all over.
So, is the model of such dualism innate?

I don’t think it’s innate due to the existence of a third term; “neutral”.

I see the attraction of a dichotomy. If evil is merely the absence to good, then all actions are done in some mixture of evil or good that can, presumably, be weighed by a divine arbiter. It is a system that naturally resists moral ambiguity.

Adding “neutral” into the mix complicates the matter and this added complexity can make a lot of people unhappy. For example, some would consider “a man picks his pen up off the ground” be be a fairly neutral act. Neither good nor bad.

We can get around this ambiguity by declaring that all things are either good or bad by default, but this declaration is rather axiomatic and can be freely rejected if you so choose.

And then, of course, there’s a discussion about whether good and bad really exist at all. But then if you were to concede they don’t, then there would be a collapse of social order. While this doesn’t prove they’re any more real than the tooth fairy, it does evidence that they are needed as a source of currency by which society can use/regulate/judge social interactions.

So, I guess the notion of good and evil may be innate, but I’m not so sure the strict dichotomy is innate.

 

[PetraG]

I see what you mean. The question is, "Did they have a view of the human such that there were “good guys” and “bad guys”? If so, then they had dualistic outlooks.

From my limited knowledge of anthropology, what seems to be innate in humans is an outlook that divides humankind into “Us” and “Them,” rather than “good” and “bad.” We look for those who we can cooperate with and differentiate them from those who have unknown (and therefore suspicious) motives.

The other things humans do is to look for patterns in incomplete data and try to deduce a “big picture” from a minimum of clues. We see pictures in the clouds and give personalities to arrangement of the stars. When you live in a world where the first to catch on to a situation and make a plan has a huge advantage, it isn’t surprising that we do this. The problem comes when we forget that our interpretation might need to change when more information comes to light.

 

[IWantGod]

All you have pointed out is the limitations of human language. If evil is rightfully describe as a perversion of good, how am i suppose to think of evil as a being. God created the heavens and the earth and it was good. Evil is not an entity in Catholic theology. The closest we get to an evil being is the devil, but even his being is good even though his will is morally evil…

 

[OneSheep]

Adding “neutral” into the mix complicates the matter and this added complexity can make a lot of people unhappy. For example, some would consider “a man picks his pen up off the ground” be be a fairly neutral act. Neither good nor bad.

Well, you are talking about a characterization of a behavior, which does not enter into the discussion of “dualism” as I described it in the OP. Of course, there are behaviors that are helpful, “good” and hurtful, “bad”, and our English language describes these, and the distinctions serve man.

And then, of course, there’s a discussion about whether good and bad really exist at all. But then if you were to concede they don’t, then there would be a collapse of social order

Perhaps you are right about this when it comes to behaviors. Yes, indeed.

So, I guess the notion of good and evil may be innate

But what about the dualism of powers?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Adding “neutral” into the mix complicates the matter and this added complexity can make a lot of people unhappy. For example, some would consider “a man picks his pen up off the ground” be be a fairly neutral act. Neither good nor bad.

Well, you are talking about a characterization of a behavior, which does not enter into the discussion of “dualism” as I described it in the OP. Of course, there are behaviors that are helpful, “good” and hurtful, “bad”, and our English language describes these, and the distinctions serve man.

Easily enough adjusted;

Just the pen, then. Is the pen good or bad?

Many would agree that it can only be so via declaration and not because it was somehow undeniably self-evident.

But what about the dualism of powers?

A model that includes neutral would probably insist that to be the default value. The powers of good and evil win what they can in their perpetual conflict.

 

[IWantGod]

Evil by definition is nothing more than the lack of good. What is it otherwise?

 

[Vonsalza]

Evil by definition is nothing more than the lack of good. What is it otherwise?

The opposition to good. It’s (-1) while good is (1). Neutral is (0).

 

[OneSheep]

Easily enough adjusted;

Just the pen, then. Is the pen good or bad?

Many would agree that it can only be so via declaration and not because it was somehow undeniably self-evident.

Well, we can make a declaration, with some validity, if we define our terms. If we can say that something is “good” if it serves man or has some positive function or purpose, then it is “good”, then we can declare with validity that a pen is good.

A model that includes neutral would probably insist that to be the default value.

Is there the existence of something of neutral value?

 

[Vonsalza]

IWantGod:

Evil by definition is nothing more than the lack of good. What is it otherwise?

The opposition to good. It’s (-1) while good is (1). Neutral is (0).

I’m not stating this as indubitable fact. I’m just saying a lot of folks think this; which brings the innateness of the good/evil dichotomy into question.

 

[OneSheep]

From my limited knowledge of anthropology, what seems to be innate in humans is an outlook that divides humankind into “Us” and “Them,” rather than “good” and “bad.”

Well, definitely the “us” and “them”! That is innate.

Do you have evidence, though, that notion of a power of evil vs a power of good in not innate?

The problem comes when we forget that our interpretation might need to change when more information comes to light.

Well, there is the constant dilemma of not knowing what we don’t know…

 

[fhansen]

Well, we innately recognize good and evil, justice and injustice, which we may or may not always keep separated as well as they should be. And while we have shame, I’m not sure that any anti-material or anti-body sentiments are innate.

Could it not be that we have an uncalled for discomfort with being created, finite, physical beings-as opposed to being God; an inferiority complex underlying our lives IOW, inextricably bound to pride, an inordinate desire to be more than-superior to- who we really are? IOW, is there not a reason why we often fail to choose the good, or mistake the lesser for the greater?

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, we can make a declaration, with some validity, if we define our terms.

And that’s how all these discussions end; a debate over semantics.

Is there the existence of something of neutral value?

Anything that isn’t particularly good or particularly evil. Like rocks.

 

[IWantGod]

Okay lets try to describe what it would mean for evil to have a being. What is it that makes it evil. Does it smell bad, does it attack people. Okay, lets say we know its evil because it attacks people. What happens when it isn’t attacking people? is it now neutral? But isn’t it evil by its very nature? How can it suddenly be neutral.

Do you see what I’m getting at here?

What is evil except in reference to a lack of good?

 

[Vonsalza]

Okay lets try to describe what it would mean for evil to have a being. What is it that makes it evil. Does it smell bad, does it attack people. Okay, lets say we know its evil because it attacks people. What happens when it isn’t attacking people? is it now neutral? But isn’t it evil by its very nature? How can it suddenly be neutral.

Do you see what i’m getting at?

I do.

You’re assuming a Thomist view of metaphysics (I think @OneSheep might also). You’re making a lot of sense to folks who subscribe to that view. Rock on!

What is evil except in reference to a lack of good?

Q.E.D.

 

[OneSheep]

All you have pointed out is the limitations of human language. If evil is rightfully describe as a perversion of good, how am i suppose to think of evil as a being

If the “perversion of good” has ended in a power of evil, something that drives the person to do wrong or evil, then there this is a power. On the other hand, if the “perversion” is one of perception, the formula changes. For example, a person can perceive that they are achieving something good, even though it such is not the case in a truly objective sense.

Evil is not an entity in Catholic theology.

Perhaps not, but when one speaks to Catholics, they are ready to point out that there are good and bad parts of the self, good and bad people, good and bad sources of power, etc. This brings us back to the question of innateness.