How do you understand the relativity of good and evil?
Don't obvious examples like concentration camps prove that evil is unmistakable? What is relative here?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
From 7 to 11 September, another Anti-Fascist forum was held in Moscow. I was invited because I was preparing a big project for this event, which was presented there.
Most of those present are former juvenile prisoners of fascism. People who are now between 75 and 95 years old. Those who went through a concentration camp in childhood or were taken to work in Germany, but lived to see the Victory and then-to this day.
Both during the preparation of the project and directly on the forum, I communicated a lot with these people. I asked: the occupiers, camp authorities, police officers, owners and managers of enterprises where the stolen children worked, and others like them – they did not understand that they were committing a terrible evil towards children? The general answer was something like this: “They were different. Some are humans, some are non-humans. Some might feel sorry for you, feed you, or pat you on the head. But none of them thought that children in a concentration camp were evil.” I mean, everyone's value system is different, and propaganda can greatly affect people's perception, so the whole nation, as happened with the people of Germany, will believe that it is possible and necessary, that it is good.
You can give an example like this:
Soldiers of both opposing sides go on the attack for the sake of peace and good for their country, their loved ones, against the treacherous and treacherous enemy.
I don't believe that good and evil are “absolutely relative”. Relativity is also relative 🙂
However, your example does not prove the absoluteness of evil.
Camps (and prisoners) are also different. Many people who survived the concentration camp became great scientists, designers, writers, psychotherapists, even founders of religions – and it is unlikely that they would otherwise have reached their heights. For them, the camp turned out to be relatively useful. And some others, perhaps, only because of the conclusion and survived… this does not mean, of course, that the organizers of the camps were not criminals.
In my opinion, when a person projects his ideas about good and evil onto reality, he “sins”. Against the truth. God (or gods). Other people and other views.
Therefore, in order to somehow agree, accept someone else's culture, or at least reconcile their ideas with reality, they have to consider good and evil relative. We can't afford American goods. What is good for the Russian, German schmerz.
However, when it considers them relative internally, he sins even more.
And I would not talk about concentration camps (here the relativity of concepts tends to zero), but about more common situations in our time. Word against word, sacred truth against sacred truth, manipulation against manipulation, army against army… I often want to exclaim after the classic: “A plague on both your houses!”)) Ethics is largely situational; the line between” good “and” bad ” wanders left and right. Staying in the basic ethical paradigms of the primary school level for life is not an option for us. Unfortunately or fortunately.
Good and evil are not objective properties that can be measured in any way. These are moral concepts included in some system of social ideology.
1) they are relative because they do not exist outside of humanity
2) they are relative because they depend on the moral system. Even in the same society, at the same time, different groups and different people have different ideas about good and evil.
3) they are relative, because they depend both on the actor and on who the action is directed at. For the winner, his winnings are good, for the loser – evil. Killing one's “own” is evil, killing the enemy is good. Deprivation of liberty by another person is an evil, in the hands of the state – the norm.
4) they are relative. because “there is no silver lining without good and good without a silver lining”
CHPP warms homes, but pollutes the environment. A great medicine can have some bad side effects.
A common mistake of everyday thinking is to see only one side.
5) they are relative because they depend on the awareness and degree of understanding of what they are trying to judge. For example, many people believe that pornography is evil. But in Denmark, after the ban on porn was lifted, sexual crime fell twice in a year. The same was observed in other countries.
Ideas about good and evil are very social. They, as part of morality, depend on the society that accepts them. And since societies in the world and in history are very different, the ” good and evil “in these societies are very different. Without morality, there is no such thing as good and evil floating in the sky. And morality doesn't exist without society. So I understand the relativity of good and evil as the difference between the morality of a particular society at a particular historical stage.
Agree that Alexander the Great destroyed much more people and even entire nations than Hitler. But who can blame Alexander? The time was different, the morale was different.
I have often thought about this as a proponent of the relativity of good and evil. Well, what about fascism, what about Hitler? This is how I answered this question for myself. Probably, through such phenomena, some force shows us how not to do it. We look, say, ” Yes, yes, of course,” and then we start to forget. And everything repeats itself. But this demonstration, which is fraught with horrors and suffering (by the way, my father went through the war, my grandfather died at the front, and my relatives were burned in a barn in the Smolensk region), is the positive side of fascism. Fascism has taught us for 70-80 years: you can't do this. By the way, I'm still from the Soviet Union, and they've been hammering it into our heads: we're not fascists. It would be nice to reproduce this. Remember the movie “Go and See”. Shots of the kid shooting at Hitler, and there are shots of an increasingly young Hitler, and a young partisan shooting. And the last shot: baby Hitler on his mother's lap. And the kid can't shoot. A dilemma, however. But this is not about the relativity of good and evil, it's about the fact that we are not fascists.
Our (?) the world is relative. There is neither good nor evil. And what is there? There is good in one system and evil in another at the same time. Evil is to our detriment, and good is to our benefit. And the evil that has befallen our enemy, is it evil or good for us?
There is such a thing as the greatest good. It is determined by a set of criteria, each of which is formulated as a particular goal of survival, for example, personal survival, the survival of the family, company, team, people, humanity, etc. The greatest good (good) is achieved when most of these criteria coincide. The least good (extreme evil) is determined by the fact that according to all these criteria, the maximum destruction (death) occurs.
Of course, such an assessment requires the utmost ethics of the individual performing such an assessment, and his ability to perceive the facts as they are, and so on. But this state of affairs can be sought and approached, thus achieving maximum rightness in their actions, and therefore good.
Unfortunately, real historical examples of individuals who have achieved something in this regard are usually limited to only a partial set of such criteria, and only a few reached the maximum, but they really became an example for millions. I mean people like Buddha, famous saints and prophets, and so on.
To begin with, I propose to define the line between good and evil.
For example: to give money to vagabonds, from the side of religion – this is good, and from the side of folk signs – this is the return of negativity along with money or things, which means evil .
Good is a very complex process in relation to evil. Evil is simple and simplified, similar to animal habits. Today, people who do good can be called melancholic, and in rude slang, a sucker.
I assume that the boundary can define the 10 commandments and the 7 mortal commandments of sin. By adhering to the commandments, it is possible to become a spiritual definition of “person” who acts intelligibly leaning on the bright side of good. Breaking the commandment on the side of evil giving in to the habits and instincts of animals.
Although many of the habits of animals are observed by humans, there are merciful and maternal ones.
There is no good or evil. There are actions and consequences. There is movement up and down. What someone has chosen is a criterion for him, his good, the opposite is evil. Any shooting ALWAYS contradicts someone. Talk about the good (about your good), the world also compensates for this with the opposite, there will be both EVIL and you outside, and your good will turn into evil for you and others. In short, true Good is BEYOND the categories of good and evil. This is a different attitude to yourself, life, people, not the one that is formed in society or in the family. Any family and social representation is already the basis of the games of good and evil, which ALWAYS flow into each other.
The most common of these definitions of good is desired, evil is rejected (regardless of what exactly this desired is). Concentration camps were ideologically and strategically expedient, so they were not considered evil.
Good and evil are absolute concepts within the Christian religion. Good is the quality of God, and evil, respectively, is the quality of the devil. These are things that are transcendental and have little to do with the kingdom of Caesar. To understand them, you must renounce the world, give away your possessions, and follow Christ. In general, to the hermitage, to monasticism, as Christ suggested to the young man who approached him.
There are no such concepts in paganism. There are only relative things-good and bad, good and bad. But what is good for the winner is bad for the loser.
Atheists, positivists and other perversions of Protestant logic, who have long lost all connection with Christianity, have returned to the pagan worldview and simply identify good with good.
It is like a return from three-dimensional space to existence on a plane.
But that's their problem.
Our world is indivisible, that is, it consists of repetitions of the Atom. Good and evil are not differences, but repetitions of each other. It is a shame to steal, but if a person steals bread so as not to die of hunger, how is this assessed?
Very often, a person slides down and his judgments about good and evil change radically. For example:
I cut down the forest. His-judgments that this is good, because he was able to earn and now his family has material prosperity, and there are no problems.
Or committed robberies and murders. At the same time, material problems left his family. Such people do not understand that they have committed murders, and they justify them in every possible way, saying that they must take a risk and then everything will be fine. However, they often do not understand what they have done. I often watch “Kanevsky” and many serials were shocked by the verdict : “Why, they didn't do anything wrong.”
If you go even lower , there are those who committed or blessed mass murders. But at the same time, they were sure that they were doing good for their people and for humanity, destroying any one people or several. Then there's Hitler. Yes, and Lenin has a phrase : “I would exterminate 90% of the population, just to make 10 live under communism.” The lower, the more terrible the judgment of good and evil.
I once wondered where the correct border is. I came to the conclusion :
“GOOD IS THE GRACE OF THE MAJORITY”
If a person has done good only for his family, but has not caused harm to others, this is also good.
And those who steal the forest can not be considered doing good, because most suffer. And those who prohibit drugs for those who really need it for the sake of a small part of drug addicts, just so that they do not get to them, while most of the patients who really need this drug because of the disease suffer. Just remember the case when a mother was arrested, who ordered a drug online for her sick son, because he could not be prescribed here in Russia. This is also evil. I'm not saying that you shouldn't fight drug addiction – you should. But the state makes it so that ordinary people, who are the majority, suffer. That is, as a result, it does evil against the majority.
If we interpret it in favor of selfishness, getting one's own benefit, justifying actions, both future and past, then we can say that good and evil are just words, and most importantly actions…The question of ignorance and personal responsibility is quite different, on the one hand, we (people) are animals on the other, and this shaky line can also act as an assessment of whether it is possible to speculate on war while donating to charity, whether it is possible to wish for peace and prepare for war, there are a lot of contradictions and speak generally…you know…if you remember those who died…but at the same time…don't do good you won't get evil… but even without evil, there is no good… humanism against one's will is also evil, the golden mean…people can not agree among themselves what a person is, not to mention good or evil, I think it does not matter and life will put everything in its place, the law of the boomerang… death, as the great equalizer, works unmistakably…if you take the apocalypse as the salvation of the planet with good… natural selection is good, when children suffer it is evil, to admire thieves and murderers is the norm in society, on the other hand, a person does not please, everything is not enough, domination, total control, on the one hand evil, on the other…without it, nowhere, how to recognize true good from true evil, I think the ideal is evil all the same, but degradation is not good, the creation of the world of Barbie and Ken is clearly evil, violence and fanaticism is evil, but…the world is so tripled, a person adapts to his own benefit and not everyone is able to empathize with a stranger, but it is hardly possible to go over their heads, nothing is true and everything is allowed… whether the mass craves the truth, no, laws and rules are written in blood, but who is it stopping if there is a causal place in the head?..medicine is powerless, what has changed in three thousand years, the seven wise men of Greece have become more relevant than before, the population is increasing, there is war, epidemics, pesticides, biopharmacology, immunology and other engineering, politics is evil, but there is no way without it, maybe in the future there will be a certain Skynet like in Terminator and we will be a threat to the higher mind, maybe we will learn to talk among ourselves, and, maybe people will learn to distinguish good from evil, but you can't count on it, given the world's history, To destroy people for the fact that they are others is evil. There are more good people than morons.
You know, the relativity of good and evil is like this – we shouldn't waste time on nonsense and listen to it, so a psychiatrist deals with people who are talking nonsense, so as not to distract people, but the problem is that at different times the words of Dombrovsky, Copernicus, J. Bruno, and Boris Chernykh were considered nonsense, and the latter was escorted to a mental hospital in the state whose legal successor the current state declared itself.
It turns out that the situation is that, as the song says: “what we were not allowed, will definitely be allowed tomorrow.”
Until 1956, Prokhorovka, the defenders of Brest, Major Gavrilov, Generals Smushkevich and Kachalov were banned from being mentioned, and later all the outcasts became “handshakes”.
General Kachalov suddenly found himself honestly killed in battle, although it was precisely for the honest death in battle that his relatives, as relatives of the enemy of the people, were repressed.
That is, I want to say that a society that says one thing, then rushes to the other extreme, should treat humanly even those who are in psychiatric hospitals, and suddenly it turns out that they are the only ones in society who were right, unlike those about whom the classic said: and who are the judges?
But the question is not even who is right and who is wrong. and the question is not that the wrong people were wrongly convicted and through no fault of their own. The question is that the division into normal and abnormal, light and marginal, should not lead to excessive moral suffering of someone who has been appointed an outcast by the government or society.
As a war veteran said:”why then fight and fight, if we will do the same as our opponent”.
All we know about modern society in states is that a loner is an excuse for the Ministry of Health, the police, the prosecutor's office and the court to trample on all human rights and do nothing.
So, in any case, the relativity of good is that “there should be no tougher punishment, but the inevitability of punishment.”
Here, for example, is the idiocy that we hear today in Russia.: “There is no statute of limitations for Hitler … this was the custom of the authorities … Stalin can be forgiven.”
It's too bad that Hitler talked about racial and linguistic superiority … But Petrusha Tolstoy can be a deputy of the State Duma, when he says: some kind of non-linguistic … we will destroy you and restore the Russian Empire.”
It is too bad that the word “God” was on the buckles of the Nazis … but here in the current constitution of the Russian Federation, God is introduced and “you are the only native land that God keeps”.
So, I am convinced that relativity and its proclamation should inevitably lead to the abolition of the criminal code.
I am convinced that there is nothing relative, and everything is unambiguously either bad or unambiguously good.
Both the child and the adult are required to be searched by the police from the moment when the request for the disappearance of a person was received, and not in the same way as on the federal channel it says: “search for adults three days after the disappearance.”
And so in everything, “if a person has treated me dishonestly, he, thereby, relieves me of the obligation to treat him honestly and frankly,” but with only one reservation-in response.
In return, I can't deal fairly with him …
Just as an attempted murder leads to the right of the victim to defend his life in any way, especially since life is the most precious thing.
A person who has been tried to be killed should not, in a psychoanalytic environment, measure defensively whether one blow is sufficient, or after one blow, the would-be killer will still be able to carry out his attempted attack. But today in the courts of Russia there is a delusion that the victim is obliged to prove that she had the right to defend herself.
Everything is clear, and not so that Sechenov's book is suddenly recognized as immoral and trampling on the norms and foundations of justice.
The censor noted:
“This materialistic book rejected free will and the immortality of the soul, does not agree with either the Christian or the criminal-legal view, and leads positively to the corruption of morals… Sechenov's book is harmful…”
So, either we recognize that a person is a blood chemistry at every moment of time and a person is brought up by every corner of the earth and every person with whom the person being brought up comes into contact, or we recognize free will and then we must indicate the age at which a person ceases to be an echo of someone's words and actions.
J. Locke: nothing is innate and everything is acquired in the process of education and socialization of the individual.
So, on the subject of a concentration camp, it is worth answering that because of one innocent person (Dombrovsky or Chernykh, Kedrov or Kachalov, Loktionov or Twice Hero of the Soviet Union Smushkevich) it is necessary to act according to the principle: “punishment is not an end in itself, but the goal is to return to society a worthy participant in public relations, which means that punishment should not imply excessive moral and physical suffering of the person under investigation or the prisoner.”
Good does not belong to evil .Chikotilo and other maniacs in all countries have killed thousands of people. They were caught by policemen and policemen. Are they good?And from them(not maniacs) all over the world ,many hundreds of thousands were killed,imprisoned, humiliated.
Of course, for this comment, I can be accused of promoting Nazism, but for God's sake. Or even consider me a humanless brute. Not deserving of life)
Any action in this world makes someone good, and someone bad.
Here they said about the Nazi camps that this is an obvious example, but nothing like that.
What is good about Nazism and for whom. The fact that if the state is mono-ethnic, it is safer and more stable inside, more friendly, cohesive, etc.
They killed Jews. But it might give the Nazis a chance that after the war, everything will be fine for them. They did the Soviets, the French, etc. badly.
So that everything is good in Germany.
Accordingly, the Germans did good to themselves, to the countries that raised their economy due to the war, but evil to the Soviets and most countries of the world. Look at how many inventions were made during the Second World War https://www.maximonline.ru/longreads/thank-war-inventions-id157355/ .
Even if you mow down, for example, a bunch of people, without any purpose at all, just for fun. This will make it good for nature, for example, and for the rest of the people who will stay alive. Since there are fewer people, more oxygen.
Well, the world is not only made up of such extremes? With such vile and obvious phenomena, humanity does not encounter so often. But the cases are much more frequent, when this relativity manifests itself quite clearly, abound in our daily life. I was yelled at angrily, I yelled – I told the truth honestly and frankly. )
I can't answer you directly about the concentration camps. Are you sure that you are you? We are 100% sure, but you are the idea of man, that is, you are the universal of the Two-Unied Triune Absolute Spirit. Ideas destroy ideas. 0 – 0 = 0.
The relativity of these concepts is possible only for an atheist philosopher. As a Christian, I can say that the Bible very clearly distinguishes between these concepts. We believe that the determinant of standards and criteria of what is good and what is evil is only the Creator, but not a person.
God is like good parents-he teaches people what they should do and what will ruin their lives.
Of course, it happens that you seem to do good, but it turns out evil. But this is another problem – the general depravity of our world, where everything has long been mixed up and people find it difficult to see cause-and-effect relationships. Therefore, Christian teaching recommends learning to understand what God wants in this particular case of life. This is a real art, and there is no person who would master it 100%.
That's why-yes, good and evil are relative, and that's why we need a Savior who will lead us to a perfect world where God and only good are.
Good and Evil are rarely found in absolutely pure form – this is only when considering the Highest Values-Life, Health, Ecology….the entire Civilization.
Actions in which good and evil are mixed can not be called absolutely good or evil, these actions are relatively (partially) good and evil – the most common case.
Good and evil, or rather the very choice and distinction of good from evil is the prerogative of Man.
There is no relativity on this simple basis.
If something is Good on the internal scale of human Conscience, then it is Good, if it is Evil, then it is Evil.
There is no other system.
However, if we “take” two people…, we will calculate the average temperature for the hospital, which will show nothing and lead to nothing.
Therefore, there is no relativity.
There is also one of the many misconceptions-knowing the consequences, on the basis of which… Well, I think you get it-and this road is going nowhere.
Good and evil are not fascism. More precisely, not only fascism.
When you decide whether to step into a puddle or jump over it, it is also a choice between good and evil. You make the same choice when choosing ice cream, a spoon, fork, a book, a website that you visit, etc., etc.
Knowledge of good and evil is the ability of independent choice, as opposed to instinctive and reflex. The bottom line is that the choice is made not on the basis of programs already installed in the genetic code, but in its own subjective world.
THIS RELATIVITY of Good and Evil was invented-concocted recently by would-be philosophers-destroyers of black politics .
All the great thinkers and scientists considered good and evil to be the foundation of life.
At the Bottom of society, these concepts of good and evil are really not widely used, here another “profitable-unprofitable” reigns, while the BENEFIT is often understood very short-sighted and unprofitable/poisonous (I wanted to do the best, but it turned out as always). The highest grief-principle here is “the taste and color of a friend is not present” – that is, it all comes down to the difference “who and what likes to watch, chew, have”….but everyone loves “beautiful, tasty, healthy” – and even here there is no significant relativity.
Very simple. Each person has his own opinion about good and evil, and it changes over time. All these opinions are relative. And there are true concepts of good and evil, absolute and unchangeable.
This is the whole trick,so to speak,that “good” and “evil” are precisely separate concepts.Since, a person is temporary, this is one time, and even erroneous is two.That's why the confusion comes out! And in an indefinite period of time,and even with a misunderstanding, just an incident will happen! The so-called crisis in all spheres of human activity.
From your point of view, the camps are evil, but from the point of view of those who built them, they are not. They lost and therefore they are condemned. The simplest example is also Japan. Where the Japanese were badly needed by the United States as a base for the fleet and therefore they did not even touch the emperor and his relatives, and there is still a temple where they pray for the souls of war criminals, they are honored as heroes and it is visited by top Japanese officials, China and Korea protest but the whole world does not care. For not Europe. Or another example, the whole world is hyping crimes against humanity in different countries of the world, but at the same time they are dead silent about Saudi Arabia, where only recently women got the right to drive cars (and then officially) and there is still an article for witchcraft. And why? Because the Saudis are the largest US ally in the region and can even rape babies.
So if you start to think about it and start reading at least the news of the world, you will see that evil and good are rather from the category of the winner calls himself good.
Good and evil are integral components of a person. Dualism (duality) of human nature is caused by the presence of two components in a person – the body and the soul. The unity and struggle of opposites – the material body with its genetic program and memory, and the subtle plane of the soul with its memory and goal settings-this is where good and evil originally came from. This is in short.
THE OPINION IS PURELY PERSONAL, NOT IMPOSED ON ANYONE! NOT CALLING ON ANYONE TO INSULT, HUMILIATE, OR SLANDER! I think the very concept of good and evil contradicts itself. It depends on which side it is on. This is in relation to people. A simple example. A car in the yard hits a child. The child's parents are angry with the driver. But, very few people consider themselves guilty. The driver counts(mostly) that you're right. The child ran out by himself. Time passes. And the situation repeats itself. But the role of the driver and parents has changed. But the convictions are the same. In a different way. If you do good all the time, you'll get a hard time. If you do evil, many will turn away.
Absolute classification can only be a classification where the object is completely fractal to its class. For example, any “piece of gold” object is fractal to its “gold” class. There is another type of classification, where an object is not fractal to its class. For example, the cart class contains a wheel object whose properties do not reflect the properties of the cart. Moreover, the properties of the cart do not fully reflect the properties of the wheel. And here we already need to talk about the relativity of both the belonging of the wheel object to the cart class, and the understanding of the cart property relative to the objects of its components.
Thus, if we consider good and evil to be the building blocks of the universe, we can speak of the absoluteness of these classes.
If we consider the universe as having a material nature, and good and evil as non-material categories that allow us to classify the universe, then it is appropriate to talk about their relativity. So, for example, a knife is good when bread is cut with it, and evil when a person is killed with it.
You point to a concentration camp and say this evil thing. And I will separate the object of the concentration camp-the prisoner and ask, Is this part of the kotzl camp? yes. Is it evil ? no.
In the heat of the moment, you can say that evil is a concentration camp without prisoners. But I will ask, is a concentration camp without prisoners really such an evil thing?
It may seem that this is an empty chatterbox. But these considerations lead to very urgent solutions:
If you perceive a concentration camp as an absolute evil, you can and should bomb it with airplanes. If you also say that this evil is relative, then you will have to worry about how to save its prisoners.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the following teaching, which was developed in the framework of Chinese philosophy (starting from the 13th century BC), and finally formed more than 1000 years ago.
this teaching considers the structure of the human soul, the basis of which is the category of De (humanity, nobility, consciousness, grace).
GOOD is considered as a harmonious state of the human soul, when all spiritual potencies are in the middle state (harmony).
EVIL is considered as a deviation from the median, towards an increase (overabundance) of potency, or a decrease (lack) of potency.
it is believed that a deviation from the middle state generates evil, a person in this state produces evil actions and decisions that are just as unhormonized as he is at this moment. being in a harmonious state, a person produces good, improving the environment through good deeds and right decisions.
above is a table of the main component potencies included in the De complex. the table consists of the right and left parts of three columns, for the purpose of our study, it is enough to consider these two honors.
the “NORM” column shows the harmonious states of potentials, and the “EXCESS” and “LACK” columns show deviations from the harmonious state in the corresponding direction (the feature of reasoning is the opposite of what we are used to, so it is easier to swap the excess and lack for a better understanding).
example-restraint (in behavior) is considered as the norm, excess of restraint is represented as dispassion (apathy), and lack of restraint as promiscuity (self-will).
actions performed by a person when he is in a particular state have a sign of the state, as well as decisions made and reactions.
Of course, the special significance of the state of De was attributed to those who make particularly significant decisions and perform actions – leaders and rulers (officials, the emperor, etc.).
the table shows the most important aspects of De for Chinese philosophy, which of course may not coincide with the significant categories of European morality and ethics.
…
in addition, this scheme is rare, since it represents a “double” evil (lack and excess), and good is not a polar category. however, the development of such a scheme requires the definition of the second good (for completeness), and the second good is “purity“. While” mediocrity ” is defined as a harmonious state of rejected (in evil) categories, blamelessness (in holiness)is defined as a state of harmony. It is defined as a concept completely unrelated to evil, which takes Te beyond humanity (as an evolutionary transition) towards Sheng (saint, ancestor spirit). immaculateness is characterized as a state of a person in which his name and body are controlled by a higher entity, or when a person acts on behalf of such an entity (similar to the Christian Christ for Christ's sake fool).
two types of good are represented by the peaks of different philosophical trends, mediocrity as the “middle way” and immaculateness as ” u-wei (non-action)”.“are incompatible concepts.
It is difficult for people to accept the position of the immateriality of good and evil.
If it were not for the phenomenon of Nazism, humanity would not have received knowledge about the dangers of breeding their own kind. Isn't this evil (Nazism) the reason for the good of knowledge and the establishment of the foundations of morality? What is more important for evolution: an episode in the history of mankind, or the assimilation of this lesson for the future, that is, the accumulation of human experience leading to the knowledge of the necessity of morality? Putting a child inoculated, the doctor causes him pain, isn't it evil, from the point of view of the child? But this is not about the current “evil”, but about the future health of the child, who, having grown up, realizes this event in a different light, for him that vaccination will no longer be evil in its unambiguous meaning of the past (child) state of consciousness. This is one side of relativity, or rather the insignificance of good and evil, when phenomena and actions are considered in perspective, and not in the current obvious manifestation.
From the point of view of the ignorant Nazis, they did good, or rather “good” to humanity, “purging” it of “worthless”, “underdeveloped” or developed “with distortions” of nations, branches of a race or sub-race, i.e., they tried to “purify” humanity in this way. At the same time, they tried to bring out a new type of person who would absorb all the “ideal” qualities in their opinion. A typical template approach, which is still inherent in many modern phenomena (including medicine), is a constant reliance on a certain Procrustean bed in forming the idea of humanity.
But from a moral point of view, a person cannot engage in the selection of his own kind, without taking into account the desires, aspirations, abilities and needs of everyone. To reveal this in each person means to begin to understand the spiritual component of a person, which modern science (including psychology) does not yet demonstrate. Artificiality and violence contradict the laws of evolution. In the opposites of understanding one is the relativity of understanding good/evil. The reason for relativity is the duality of the manifested, where there is duality, there is always relativity, otherwise it can only be in the Absolute.
The embodied person does not have an exhaustive knowledge of the current state of humanity in order to make correct “selection” conclusions and not harm by implementing them. It is necessary to study the essence of man/humanity, which is spirituality.
Precisely, all evil comes from the fact that people neglect the moral laws in their activities, even if their activities are not obvious, but are only at the level of conscious thought. After all, thoughts are energy that unites by kinship, i.e. is attracted, collected, accumulated, mutually enriched in certain layers of being and Consciousness, and having gained critical strength, it falls on those who consciously gave birth to it (thought), demanding from those who gave birth to it once, its implementation, i.e. implementation already in the material, and not the ideal world.
Very simple.As you know, every person is constantly fighting good and evil(God and the devil).And from what the soul of a person is closer to , good or evil, relativity appears “from his point of view”
And why does the Bible say, ” The road to hell is paved with good intentions? Doesn't that worry you? Apparently, Maya, as an illusion, stands precisely on the fact that at the current level of consciousness development, people cannot form a correct idea of reality, including about good and evil in its pure form. I write that this is true for people, because for me, the concepts of people and people or people are not equal.
Amputation of a limb is good or evil? The doctor, practically injuring, doing evil, saves the patient's life, doing good.
Kill a maniac for good or evil? Technically, you do evil by killing, but you do good by saving the world from scum.
Grafting good or evil? A person is injected with a live culture of a deadly disease, creating immunity for him…
And there are so many such examples that there is even a phrase that everything is relative.
The parable is a little primitive, but the essence is true and correct. Judging other people – and, first of all, yourself-is necessary not only by actions, but, to a greater extent, by intentions. I have an example from personal experience, if necessary, I will add it. The Parable:
— Am I dead yet?” the man asked.
“Uh — huh,” Demiurge nodded, still studying the thick, impressive book. “He's dead. Definitely.
The man shifted uncomfortably from one foot to the other.
— Now what?”
Demiurge gave him a quick glance and turned back to his book.
He pointed a finger at an inconspicuous door without looking at it. “Or there,” he said, pointing a finger at another identical door.
— What's in there?” the man asked.
“Hell,” Demiurge said. According to circumstances.
The man hesitated, looking from one door to the other.
“Ah… which one should I go to?”
— Don't you know?” he raised an eyebrow slightly.
“Well,” the man hesitated. “You never know. Where am I supposed to go, according to my deeds…
“Hm! Demiurge placed the book with his finger and finally looked directly at the man. “By deeds, then?”
“Yeah, but what else?”
Demiurge opened the book closer to the beginning and began to read aloud. — It says here that at the age of twelve you moved an old lady across the street. Was there such a thing?
“It was,” the man nodded.
— Is that a good thing or a bad thing?”
– Good, of course!
— Now let's see… – Demiurge turned the page — – in five minutes this old lady was run over by a tram on another street. If you hadn't helped her, they would have missed each other, and the old lady would have lived for another ten years. How's it going?”
The man blinked in shock.
Demiurge opened the book somewhere else. — At the age of twenty-three, you and a group of comrades participated in a brutal beating of another group of comrades.
“They came first!” The man's head snapped up.
“That's not what it says here,” Demiurge said, ” and by the way, being intoxicated isn't a mitigating factor. Anyway, you broke two fingers and a nose on a seventeen-year-old boy for nothing. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
The man said nothing.
— After that, the guy could no longer play the violin, and after all, he showed great promise. You ruined his career.
“I didn't mean to,” the man mumbled.
“Of course,” Demiurge nodded.
— By the way, the boy hated this violin from childhood. After your meeting, he decided to take up boxing to be able to stand up for himself, and eventually became a world champion. Shall we continue?
Demiurge turned a few more pages.
“Is rape a good thing or a bad thing?”
— But I did…
— This child became a wonderful doctor and saved hundreds of lives. Good or bad?
“Well, I guess…
— Among those lives was that of a homicidal maniac. Bad or good?
“But…
— And a homicidal maniac will soon stab a pregnant woman who could become the mother of a great scientist! Ok? Bad?
“But…
— This great scientist, if he was allowed to be born, would have invented a bomb that could burn out half the continent. Bad? Or good?
— But I couldn't possibly know all this!” the man shouted.
“Or here, for example, on page 246 — you stepped on a butterfly!” — And what came of it?” Demiurge silently turned the book towards the man and pointed. The man read it, and the hair on his head began to prickle.
“What a nightmare,” he whispered.
“But if you hadn't crushed it, this would have happened.” The man looked up and swallowed hard.
– It's coming out… Did I save the world?
“Yes, four times,” Demiurge confirmed. – By crushing a butterfly, pushing an old man, betraying a friend, and stealing Grandma's purse. Each time the world was on the verge of disaster, but your efforts pulled through.
The man hesitated for a moment. — But on the brink of this very catastrophe … him, too, am I?”..
“You, you, don't hesitate. Twice. When I fed a stray kitten and when I saved a drowning person.
The man's knees buckled and he sat down on the floor.
— I don't understand, ” he sobbed. — Everything I've done in my life… everything I've been proud of and ashamed of… everything is the opposite, inside out, everything is not what it seems!
“That is why it would be completely wrong to judge you according to your deeds,” Demiurge admonished.
“Except in terms of intent… but you're your own judge.”
He slammed the book shut and put it in the bookcase, among other similar books.
— Anyway, when you decide where you want to go, go to the chosen door. I still have my hands full.”
The man raised his tear-stained face.
— But I don't know which is hell and which is heaven.”
“That depends on what you choose,” Demiurge said.
By themselves, the terms “good” and” evil ” do not have an unambiguous interpretation and a systematic description. Here are some examples that came to mind right now.
1) The well-known expression “disservice” – it seems to be a good deed done by a person, which can bring a positive result instantly, but in the long run it further encourages the approach of a bad end. Well, how to give a drug addict money for a dose, or let a fellow student write off a medical exam (a little exaggerated, but you understand).
2) A grandmother feeding a pack of stray dogs. Grandma feeds the dogs with the best of intentions, because she understands that it is difficult for them to survive on the street, she loves animals. As a result, the flock begins to perceive this territory, where their grandmother feeds them, as their own, and begins to destroy everything that moves through this territory – first cats, then people who accidentally wander there. They can eat their grandmother sooner or later. So ,by doing local good, the grandmother gives birth to a much more global evil.
3) I remember one “godly” person whom I had to deal with several times at work. The personality is very interesting and colorful, both in appearance and in the way of thinking, but not the essence. So, one day there was a conversation in his presence – someone said “so-and-so, so-and-so bad and evil”, to which the comrade replied that there are no evil people. Here you have a mother – in-law-well, a bloodsucker, does not give life, and you think so-that's what a sinister person! And that mother-in-law has a husband – well, he loved her and dotes on her, so for him she is kind, but how can she not be both evil and kind?!
Well, like the story of Robin Hood, Yuri Detochkin or the Elusive Avengers, in the end, I will not chew, you can draw analogies of the duality of their actions yourself.
4) Well, a bearded joke, not quite in the subject, however:
I was a student, and I had a very close friend. We somehow managed to fall in love with the same girl. As a result of a short struggle, the girl chose my friend and I was left with a nose. A friend…I lost my nose. The topic of today's lecture is “Syphilis”.
After all, the concepts of evil and good are relative and lie exclusively in the plane of individual perception, and our perception is formed exclusively from the state of our mind. If a person is depressed and beaten down, he begins to see bad things everywhere, very acutely perceive all sorts of unpleasant phenomena, even small ones, and vice versa – a person who has caught harmony may not notice any troubles and perceive the same events in a different way.
Each religion has its own set of values and worldviews. And, just as religions can differ radically, so do their understanding of good and evil differ. For example, in Orthodoxy, craving for money is a sin; in liberalism, it is an absolute value.
The author simply does not know what the Inherent Basic Rights and Freedoms inherent in EVERY person are.
And if he knows, what other types of” good and evil “does he mean, if there is nothing more” common to each ” person? All other morals, moralities, rules of conduct established by older people in their age or position, ANY “good” that is not equal to” human rights ” are always subjective and always violate these very basic rights.
Anything that violates human rights and freedoms is evil.
This direct approach should be taught at school, but alas, they do not teach it, because the state is not interested in such thinking from childhood.
Is amputation good or evil? Vaccination, when injected with a disease, sometimes fatal… And tell a friend about her husband's infidelity? Good? It's true, isn't it? But what are the consequences of this truth? What if a friend freaks out and kills her husband? By the way, is killing a husband who mocks his wife good or evil?
Your example of a concentration camp. I read the opinion that after the war medicine has made a big step forward, including thanks to the experiments of medical fiends, which they conducted on living people and children. Pure absolute evil. And their achievements save lives. Here's how to treat everything?
Remember the phrase-the road to hell is paved with good intentions… This, in my opinion, is also about the relativity of good and evil.