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?
Our time is no different from the previous ones. For many thousands of years, it has been universally accepted that it is bad to kill, steal, cheat – in general, to cause damage without sufficient reason to do so.
Differences in details, usually in the details of what we consider sufficient reasons to cause damage, less often in the details of what is considered damage.
Here on the last points there has never been a single point of view, although I am quite firmly convinced that throughout history the vector for the growth of requirements for the sufficiency of grounds is clearly visible and this vector is strongly connected with the development of general cultural and technical development.
With good, it is more difficult, ideas about how to act are much more diverse than about how not to.
Good is everything that protects and develops the absolute objective highest values of all people – Correct Knowledge and Science, Ecology and Life and Health, Quality of Life, Peace and Order….
Evil is everything that destroys the absolute objective values of all people – Incorrect Knowledge and Errors of Behavior and Thinking, destruction of the Environment and Life and Health, reduced Quality of Life, War and Crime….
Degradation of the individual and society is manifested in the destruction, denial, misunderstanding of these fundamental scientific and practical concepts of “Good-Evil” and primitive reasoning at the level of the primitive everyday erroneous principle “there is no comrade for taste and color” – even there are a lot of comrades for taste and color – absolutely everyone likes useful, tasty, beautiful things – differences in microscopic insignificant details….
1.3 Definitions of good and evil.
Based on all of the above, we can give the following definitions of good and evil.
a). Good (moral), is the expression of will aimed at preserving the interests and feelings of another person at the expense of concessions and sacrifices (usually the most insignificant) in the sphere of personal interests, desires and ambitions.
b). Evil (immoral), is the expression of will aimed at trampling, or neglecting the interests and feelings of another person, in an effort to satisfy personal interests, desires and ambitions.
The paradigmatic truth of these statements is evidenced at least by their correlation with the famous “golden” rules of morality…
a). Do to others as you want them to do to you.
b). Don't do to others what you don't want to do to yourself.
There is no generally accepted one. The objective is: good is the harmony of the world and the harmonious development of the world, evil is the destruction of the harmony of the world and the hindrance to the harmonious development of the world.
Good and evil are relative concepts, like left and right, top and bottom. Each concept will be defined through the opposite. Good and evil can simply be overlaid with a certain set of moral traditions that have been accumulated for thousands of years. This creates the illusion that there are absolute definitions for good and evil.
Objectivity is the existence of something regardless of the presence or absence of observers with their opinions. For example, gravity.
Commonality is the agreement reached in the opinions of the majority of people. For example, human rights.
Good and evil always exist in someone's perception, i.e. they are subjective. This does not mean that there is nothing to discuss, but only that objectivity is not about good and evil. For example, one person kicked another-this will be a fact, and to whom it is good, to whom it is evil-estimates, which, by the way, may not coincide – depending on why they kicked and who you sympathize with.
In total, we can talk about the generally accepted understanding of good and evil. For example, good is keeping the commandments, and evil is not keeping them. Or so: good is compliance with the laws, and evil is non-compliance. Or: good is to be at peace with yourself, and evil is to be depressed. Good is to be healthy, and evil is to be sick. It is good to be smart, and evil to be stupid. Poverty is evil, wealth is good (or vice versa). Prohibitions are evil, freedom is good. To live and let others live is good, neither to yourself nor to people is evil. These definitions may seem incomplete and contradictory in places, but we are not talking about their completeness – we are talking about general acceptance.
There is no universally accepted definition. Evil is “partisan”. Vasya kicked Petya with his boot. For Petya, this is evil . And for Vasya, it can be good, because he has achieved his goals by this. For slaveholders in general, slavery is a good thing. And for slaves in general, this is evil. �Naturally, only slave owners can speak, so they present their morals as “objective”.�
It's the same now. For ordinary people, war and murder are evil. For some, this is good – because they make profits and easily resolve complex contradictions. �For some, war is an evil thing, but conducting diplomacy on the edge of war seems to be a good thing.�
In general, spontaneous moral principles are formed due to the expediency of a particular class. If a slave is not concerned with personal interests, but with other slaves, then from the point of view of other slaves, he will be kind. And if he makes his life easier at the expense of others, then he will be considered evil.�
That is, only expediency can be objective(which, however, is not always obvious to understand). And good and evil are already other people's assessments.
There is life and death. Actions that can lead someone to death are evil. Actions that support the spark of life in people are good. Help, love, and a kind word are welcome. Fornication, evil gossip-evil.�
Evil is insidious, and sometimes hides behind virtue. Society loses from evil, so, in principle, it tries to fight it. Religious rules and social laws have much in common, and society itself began to develop rapidly with the establishment of laws in the state.�
And it is probably no coincidence that the Roman Empire and its laws emerged simultaneously with the birth of Christianity. At the cost of their lives, the apostles were able to conquer an empire whose laws, combined with Christian ones, passed through centuries and continents, educating generations.
Today, culture is gradually abolishing religious charters. In some places, some state laws are being relaxed and simplified. All this contributes to fornication, theft, violence and repeated violence, they are not afraid to kill and steal, sometimes acting from loss of control over themselves. Serious crimes among schoolchildren and young people are a bell – they are still immature fruits of education.
Thus, we can conclude that similar religious and social laws protect life – that is, good. Take away statehood and social laws from society – it can somehow exist on moral (religious) grounds, but if you destroy the morality of society, it will depend only on laws and statehood. And statehood and laws have long been an object of attack for globalists, as well as religion. From the time when the world Comintern was built to the present day.
The struggle between good and evil is now conducted at the level of laws and statehood, manipulating the public. We will change the leader, adopt the necessary laws and appointments, and everything will hang in the balance. Let's promote LGBT people, legalize marijuana, deindustrialize society – let atheistic China do everything. And the destruction of religious morality formed by culture – on the face. Statehood is fragile: there was the USSR and it is not there – and how much evil has spilled out? However, during the formation of the USSR, the founding fathers splashed out even more. � �
Whatever Good and Evil is the behavior of people, and behavior must be regulated by something, and regulated in order to preserve life!!! According to Christian dogmas, the God of Israel preserves life, and Satan, the ancient serpent, the red dragon, called the devil (From the book of John the Theologian (Apocalypse)) he wants to destroy it. The Western world, along with Russia, has always been associated with Christianity, but China is associated with the dragon. The Chinese figuratively call themselves the children of the dragon. The Western world is now fragmenting (Delhi and conquer): trade wars, Brexit – making independent deals with China, and China already knows a lot. And all this in the future will spill out either for the good of the Christian world, or for evil. The eradication of Christianity and its teachings, sarcasm and persecution, its simplification is a litmus test and a bell about what is happening. Not all at once, and not all openly, but linked to the consequences.�
Judge by the fruits; a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
There is no objective and at the same time generally accepted definition of these two concepts. There is an objective view of good and evil, which is supported by a number of religious traditions of the world. And there is a generally accepted view of modern ” world civilization “(especially its leaders) on good and evil. So if we take the generally accepted view (which I do not share), then taking into account the spread and dictate of neoliberal ideology, it can be expressed in the form of the following provisions::
Good and evil are subjective and depend on the motives and consequences of a person's choice. In addition, they depend on the social contract – what is recognized as evil at the moment.
In general, humanity is moving away from evil to good, that is, in history there is a decrease in evil (the theory of moral progress or moral optimism).
Evil in individual and social relations is those actions or phenomena that bring significant physical or mental harm to a person. Harm is determined according to the pleasure-displeasure principle, that is, the utilitarian principle. What leads to an increase in overall pleasure and happiness is good, if not harmful to others.
Evil in international relations is determined by the extent to which a given country or people has already adopted generally accepted ideas about good and evil. For example, if there is still some “evil” in a country, defined as such by the social contract of the inhabitants of developed countries, then it is not evil to attack this country, overthrow its government and forcibly establish an order that generally serves the good. At the same time, an attack on one of the developed countries is evil by definition. all the inhabitants of these countries generally share the basic values of utilitarianism and hedonism, and therefore harming them belongs to the individual level (see above).
All this, of course, is very sad. Because it has nothing to do with objectivity.