Do Good & Evil exist outside of Human society?

[Kehengto]

Personally this question boils down to a theology perspective. Looking at the human race, every civilization had a measure of what was good and what was evil, but at the core there was a moral sense that developed it.

Personally I believe there is an absolute measure to which is good and which is evil by which all will need to account. (For an expounding of this please PM me and I would glad to discuss this further on a one on one basis.)

That said, the lines can be blurred or even forgotten if an absolute is not established or not recognized. So I can understand the issue because of that.

To quote ceasar: "what is truth?"

In essence the question of good and evil revolve around that question. If truth is relative, then so is good and evil. With no absolute who can say which is which?

In regards to the original question: I voted yes, and as soon as I find resources to support my stance I shall cite them.

[names]

I agree with kehengto. I have a book called In Praise of Meekness, Essays on Ethics and Politics. If you ever want to read up on it, somewhere in this book it mentions that theology of past civilizations suggested good and evil existed. Thus sprang the idea. Norberto bobbio uses his arguments to suggest a lot of the time as a central theme morals are the government's priority, he uses this as supporting background info on where people made judgments based on values. In other words if the end justifies the means in cases of driscrimination of the weak and oppressed.

[max929]

Originally Posted by Ziljon

I've been thinking about motives, about protagonists and antagonists, and about good and evil.

I'm confused. Are good and evil absolute or are they relative? And if they are relative, then how can they exist at all when the most common assumed definition for both of them entails being the opposite of the other?

Everything I come up with as an example of pure evil turns out not to be when attributed to nature (you try).

So what is evil? What is good? Do they exist outside of society, outside of consciousness?

Any thoughts?

Good and Evil are relative. They depend on each other to define one another. You cannot measure good without first measuring evil, and vice versa

If you accept that answer the next question you have to ask is how do you want to quantify your measurements...from a utilitarian prospective or an isolationist view point? Is it the greatest good for the most or the greatest good for the individual...

Lastly, good and evil are strictly human constructs. They are abstract and intangible. They are hypotheticals we have to imagine for them to exist. They don't exist in the universe...for example, if an asteroid hits earth and kills all the life on it, the universe didn't intend to kill all life, that is just what happened...a mathematical equation of velocity+mass+trajectory=boom

[Abacas]

I don't think so that, Good and Evil exist out side of our society. As these are always with us and between us. Infect, goods and evils are someone out of us, as people do have different nature, behavior, ethics, code of conduct and values. Which actually sometime act as good or evil.

[StevenHarvey1990]

I love these debates.

I'm going to say neither good nor evil exist. Not limited to existence outside humanity. I don't believe they exist. Period. The key here is belief. There is no right answer or wrong answer.

This is purely a hypothetical but let's say ... I go out of my house now and butcher the first person I see. Who's to say that is 'evil' or 'wrong'?

Doesn't matter the reason, who it was, how I did it, if I ate their ear or whatever.

Only PEOPLE would give that action or series of actions a meaning or describe it a certain way. Generally speaking that would be described as sick, disturbed, criminal and evil.

My point is no matter who or how many people say "Oh that's evil" or "That's proof that evil exists" it doesn't make them right, or by contrast wrong.

We are animals. Sophisticated or civilised, yes. We all have primal urges and desires, be they sexual or otherwise. Look at the Oedipus complex (not saying I believe it). Many would deem a Mother/Son or Father/Daughter sexual relationship 'wrong'. If and I stress IF it's a natural instinct as Freud would suggest then what is so wrong? Are the people who repress these natural urges not wrong then?

The same could be argued with someone like Ed Gein. Is he wrong? Is he really evil?

My opinion ... No!

Like someone said it's all relative or subjective. One mans definition or more importantly opinion is not right or wrong it's just an opinion or belief.

There can be no correct answer is where to leave it I think. One of those topics, like many philosophical topics, that can only go round in circles.

[anne_tedeton]

Oh, man. I love debates like these.

This is a hard question, because the definitions of good and evil are different across cultures. What is socially acceptable (good) in one culture may be abhorrent in another, and our concepts of good and evil aren't static. They change and evolve over time. Some things that were considered to be good hundreds of years ago are considered evil now. In first-world countries, we typically don't stone people who have affairs anymore. The rules have changed. They never stop changing.

Of course, it could be argued that our morals are wrong, but given that good and bad are dependant upon culture, that argument can get a bit tricky.

There's also the problem of some people having no innate moral compass. Whether you argue for nature or nuture, some people just have no distinction between good and evil. You could argue that good and evil are simply split into reward/punishment, but that's more of an end result of behavior.

Even that becomes tricky. Psychology steers away from labelling people and behaviors as good or evil. You're either "normal" or "mentally ill." And if sociopathy, a personality disorder, is considered a mental illness, well, that makes things even trickier, doesn't it?

But there are certain irredeemable behaviors that remain somewhat static across time and culture--murder, cannibalism, rape, incest, stealing, lying, etc. Given that there's general agreement surrounding particular behaviors, it could be argued that a predominant "evil" does exist. "Good" seems to be the means of resistance. As to which is humanity's natural state...well, that's a whole different argument.

If you really want to give yourself nightmares, Lars von Trier's Antichrist posits something truly upsetting--that humanity was not created by God, but by the devil. The film goes waaaay beyond the concept of original sin. I needed brain bleach after watching it because the content was so disturbing, but that particular idea was the most upsetting part of the whole film.

TL;DR I personally think good and evil are socially determined concepts. We can't be fully certain as to whether morality is a part of a person's natural state, but we can agree that certain behaviors are either acceptable or unacceptable.